Search

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 BioWorma® (Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336) when used as a zootechnical feed additive for all grazing animals. Duddingtonia flagrans belongs to a group of nematophagous fungi that physically entrap nematodes through an adhesive hyphal net. The additive contains the fungus in the form of chlamydospores and is intended to control pathogenic nematodes on pasture, with subsequent benefits for grazing animals. No conclusions could be drawn on the safety for the target species due to lack of data. ■■■■■ As it is not possible to exclude the presence of secondary metabolites (other than flagranones) produced during fermentation and their potential carry‐over into animal products, safety for the consumer could not be established. The Panel concluded that the additive is not irritant to skin and eyes but is irritant to the respiratory tract and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion could be drawn on its skin sensitisation potential. Since D. flagrans is a naturally inhabiting soil organism of world‐wide distribution, the Panel considered that use of an additive based on this organism does not pose a risk for the environment under the intended conditions of use. The strain under application reduced the number of parasitic nematodes on pasture to the benefit of grazing animals when used at the recommended application rate of 3 × 104 chlamydospores/kg bodyweight and day.

Bonvital ® is the trade name for a feed additive based on Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 currently authorised for use in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species. This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of Bonvital ® as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. The applicant is proposing to increase the minimum and maximum inclusion level of the additive in feed for weaned piglets and the maximum for pigs for fattening. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. E. faecium DSM 7134 does not belong to the hospital-associated clade and does not express resistance to the antibiotics tested; therefore, its use in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target animals and consumers of animal products. Bonvital ® is also considered safe for the target animals and consumers. In previous opinions, Bonvital ® was found to be non-irritant to skin and eyes, but a potential skin/respiratory sensitiser and safe for the environment. No new evidence has been identified that would make the Panel reconsider the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive. The conclusions reached before are considered to cover the higher maximum application rates proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Bonvital ® used under the proposed conditions of use is safe for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, consumers of products derived from animals fed Bonvital ® and the environment. Bonvital ® is considered a potential skin/respiratory sensitiser. The additional studies provided confirm that Bonvital ® has the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets at 1 × 10 9 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg feed and in pigs for fattening at 2 × 10 8 CFU/kg feed.

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 Lactobacillus reuteri NBF‐2 when used in feed for cats at a minimum dose of 6 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32264. This species is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach establishing safety for the target species and the environment. The active agent fulfils the requirements of the QPS approach to the assessment of safety. Consequently, in the absence of concerns form other components of the additives, Lactobacillus reuteri NBF‐2 is presumed safe for the target animals and the environment. Lactobacillus reuteri NBF‐2 should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the irritancy of the additive to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation. The FEEDAP the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri NBF‐2 for cats.

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 HOSTAZYM ® X as a feed additive for sows in order to have benefit in piglets. The additive HOSTAZYM ® X contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase and is available in liquid and solid formulations. This product is authorised as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, laying hens, minor poultry species for fattening and laying, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and carps. The applicant has now requested to extend the authorisation to sows in order to have benefit in piglets. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the new use of the additive would not change the previous conclusions regarding the safety for the consumer, user and environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that there are no concerns for consumer safety and no risks for the environment are expected. Considering the safety for the user, it was concluded that the additive should be considered a potential skin and eye irritant, and a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser. A tolerance study was submitted to support the safety of the additive in the new target species/category. The results showed that sows tolerated well a 100‐fold the recommended enzyme activity level in feed. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for sows at 1,500 EPU/kg feed. A total of four studies were submitted to support the efficacy of the additive, one of which was not considered further in the assessment due to the high mortality registered in piglets. In the other three, a significant and positive effect on a relevant parameter was found in only one trial. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is insufficient information to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Calsporin® is the trade name for a feed additive based on Bacillus subtilis DSM 15544. It is currently authorised for use in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets, chickens reared for laying, turkeys, minor avian species and other ornamental and game birds, and ornamental fish. This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of Calsporin® as a zootechnical additive for chickens for fattening. In 2006 and 2007, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) adopted two opinions on the safety and efficacy of Calsporin® when used in chickens for fattening, and the active agent was further characterised in an opinion from 2015. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. Furthermore, according to the information provided in the technical dossier, no new evidence has been identified that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsider the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel confirms its previous conclusion that Calsporin® is safe for the target species, consumers of products from animals fed the additive, users and the environment.

The additive under assessment consists of a natural mixture, mainly composed of dolomite (~ 30%), magnesite (~ 20%) and magnesium‐phyllosilicates (talc (~ 35%) and chlorite (~ 15%)). In 2016, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an opinion on the safety and efficacy of natural mixture of dolomite plus magnesite and magnesium‐phyllosilicates. In this opinion, the Panel concluded that 20,000 mg additive/kg complete feed is considered safe for dairy cows and for piglets (weaned). This conclusion was extended to pigs for fattening while no conclusion could be drawn on the safety for poultry or any other species/categories. Following this opinion, the European Commission gave the possibility to the applicant to submit complementary information in order to complete the assessment on the safety for all animal species. The new tolerance studies submitted with cattle for fattening and chickens for fattening showed tolerance of these animal categories to the additive up to approximately fivefold the highest recommended use level. The FEEDAP Panel therefore concluded that 20,000 mg additive/kg complete feed is safe for cattle for fattening and chickens for fattening. The additive at the same dietary concentration was already considered safe in an earlier opinion for piglets and dairy cows. Since the additive at 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is considered safe for four animal categories (three major animal species) with a comparable margin of safety, the conclusion on safety is extrapolated to all animal species. At the safe dietary concentration the additive did not affect the digestibility of the feed (including feed additives).

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.

Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Calsporin® when used in feed for pigs for fattening. The additive contains viable spores of a single strain of Bacillus subtilis. This species is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. This approach requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established, evidence that the strain is not toxigenic and that it does not show resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach in the context of previous opinions and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, Calsporin® is presumed safe for all target species, including pigs, consumers of products derived from animals treated and for the environment. In a previous opinion, the Panel also concluded that the additive is not a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive in pigs for fattening is considered unlikely to introduce hazards for users of the product not already considered as part of the first assessment. Therefore, the conclusions reached apply to the current application. Based on the results of the pooled analysis of four studies, the Panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed (FEEDAP) concludes that Calsporin® has the potential to improve performance of pigs for fattening at 1.5 × 108 CFU/kg feed.

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 Coxiril® for pheasants. Coxiril®, containing 0.5% diclazuril, is intended for the prevention of coccidiosis in pheasants at a dose range of 1.0–1.2 mg/kg of complete feed. Diclazuril from Coxiril® is considered safe for pheasants at a level of 1.2 mg/kg complete feed. The conclusion was made by extrapolating the results of a tolerance study with turkeys for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the residues in pheasant tissues and eggs would be of the same magnitude as those measured in the physiologically similar major species chickens and turkeys for fattening. The use of diclazuril at a maximum concentration of 1.2 mg/kg complete fed for pheasants would be safe for the consumer, provided that the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established for poultry would not be exceeded. The conclusions on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumer are made under the provision that Coxiril® is not fed to laying birds. Coxiril® is considered as a non‐irritant to eyes and skin. It is not a potential skin sensitiser. User inhalation exposure to Coxiril®, as a result of normal handling, is unlikely to cause respiratory or systemic toxicity. The use of diclazuril from Coxiril® in pheasants does not pose a risk to the environment for neutral/alkaline soils (pH ≥ 7). A final conclusion on the risk resulting from the use of the additive in acid soil cannot be done due to the high uncertainties related to potential accumulation of diclazuril over time. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that diclazuril from Coxiril® at a minimum dose of 1 mg/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in pheasants.

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 Coxiril® (diclazuril) for chickens reared for laying. Coxiril®, containing 0.5% diclazuril, is intended for the prevention of coccidiosis in chickens reared for laying at a dose range of 0.8–1.2 mg diclazuril/kg of complete feed up to a maximum age of 12 weeks. Derived from data already assessed for chickens and turkeys for fattening, diclazuril from Coxiril® is safe for chickens reared for laying up to 1.2 mg/kg complete feed when applied until 12 weeks of age. The FEEDAP Panel extended its previous assessment of consumer safety for the use of diclazuril from Coxiril® in chickens for fattening to chickens reared for laying. No measurable diclazuril residues were found in the first eggs laid from chickens reared for laying fed diclazuril from Coxiril® at 1.2 mg/kg complete feed until 12 weeks of age. Coxiril® was considered as a non‐irritant to eyes and skin. It is not a potential skin sensitiser. User inhalation exposure to Coxiril®, as a result of normal handling, is unlikely to cause respiratory or systemic toxicity. The use of diclazuril from Coxiril® in chickens reared for laying at the highest proposed feed concentration would not pose a risk to the environment for neutral/alkaline soils (pH ≥ 7). A final conclusion on the risk resulting from the use of diclazuril in acid soil from Coxiril® cannot be done due to the high uncertainties related to potential accumulation of diclazuril over time. Derived from data already assessed for chickens for fattening, diclazuril from Coxiril® has the potential to control coccidiosis in chickens reared for laying at a minimum concentration of 0.8 mg/kg complete feed.

Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSA's scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision‐making. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5122/full

Avatec® 150G is an anticoccidial feed additive containing 15% of the active ingredient lasalocid A sodium, an ionophore anticoccidial. The tolerance study indicated that oral administration of lasalocid A sodium via feed at doses at and above the targeted lasalocid dose of 125 mg/kg was not tolerated in chickens for fattening. Consequently, no safe dose can be established by the tolerance study submitted. Concurrent administration of lasalocid with tiamulin and certain other medicinal substances should be avoided. Lasalocid sodium has a selective antimicrobial activity against Gram‐positive bacterial species while many Enterobacteriaceae are naturally resistant. Induction of resistance and/or cross‐resistance was not observed in experimental conditions. Lasalocid A sodium is not genotoxic and not carcinogenic. The newly conducted cardiovascular study in dogs indicated an acute no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) of 1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Since this NOAEL is above the lowest NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg bw per day previously identified in a 2‐year toxicity study in rats and a developmental study in rabbits, it is concluded that this NOAEL (0.5 mg/kg bw per day) is an appropriate base for establishing an Acceptable Daily Intake of 0.005 mg lasalocid sodium/kg bw. The use of lasalocid A sodium from Avatec® 150G at the highest proposed level of 125 mg/kg complete feed is safe for the consumer. For compliance with the maximum residue limits (MRLs), a withdrawal period of 3 days is necessary. No risk for the user is expected from the use of Avatec® 150G. The use of lasalocid A sodium from Avatec® 150G in feed for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying up to the highest proposed dose does not pose a risk for the environment. Insufficient evidence of the anticoccidial efficacy of lasalocid A sodium was provided in chickens for fattening/reared for laying.

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 strain of Lactobacillus buchneri when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and as no antibiotic resistance of concern was detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the skin and eye irritancy or skin sensitisation of the additive. The additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. Three studies with laboratory‐scale silos were made using samples of easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile material. In each case, replicate silos containing untreated forage were compared with identical silos containing the same forage treated with the combination of Lactobacillus buchneri NRRL B‐50733 at an intended concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh matter. The results showed that the addition of Lactobacillus buchneri NRRL B‐50733 at 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the aerobic stability of silage with a dry matter content ranging from 30% to 73%.

The additive Alterion NE ® is a preparation containing viable spores of a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The additive is intended for use in feed for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the proposed dose of 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feedingstuffs. B. subtilis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to establish safety. As the identity of the active agent was established and the lack of toxigenic potential and of resistance to antibiotics of human or veterinary clinical significance demonstrated, the additive is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Alterion NE ® is not a dermal irritant but is irritant to eyes and should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the dermal sensitisation of the additive. Alterion NE ® at the recommended dose 1 × 108 CFU/kg feed has the potential to improve the zootechnical performance of chickens for fattening. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying when used at the same dose. B. subtilis DSM 29784 is compatible with monensin sodium, narasin/nicarbazin, salinomycin sodium, lasalocid sodium, diclazuril, narasin, maduramicin ammonium, robenidine hydrochloride and decoquinate at the highest authorised levels.

Bacillus subtilis PB6 is a feed additive based on viable spores of a strain of Bacillus subtilis. EFSA has already issued several opinions on the safety and efficacy of the additive when used in the feed for a number of avian and porcine species/categories. The applicant is now seeking authorisation for use in sows in order to have benefits in piglets. In the course of previous assessments, no evidence of a toxigenic potential or resistance to relevant antibiotics was found. Consequently, the strain of B. subtilis in the additive, following the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment, is presumed safe for target animals including sows and their offspring, consumers and the environment. In a previous assessment, it was also concluded that the additive is not a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser and that there were no concerns on respiratory sensitisation. The use of the additive with feed for sows is considered unlikely to introduce hazards for users of the product not already considered. Five studies are described in which groups of sows given the additive for a minimum period from the last 3 weeks of pregnancy, throughout farrowing and lactation, until weaning of piglets were compared with a control group. In only two of five studies, there was a significant beneficial effect seen in terms of piglet performance. However, when data from the four similar were pooled and analysed, significant increases in weaned weight and average daily gain were indicated for piglets from sows given the additive. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Bacillus subtilis PB6 when added to diets of sows from 3 weeks before parturition until weaning of piglets at a dose of 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed has the potential to improve the growth of piglets from birth to weaning.

Following a request from the European Commission to EFSA, the EFSA Scientific Committee (SC) prepared a guidance for the risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. In its approach to develop this guidance, the EFSA SC took into account, among others, (i) an exposure assessment based on infant formula as the only source of nutrition; (ii) knowledge of organ development in human infants, including the development of the gut, metabolic and excretory capacities, the brain and brain barriers, the immune system, the endocrine and reproductive systems; (iii) the overall toxicological profile of the substance identified through the standard toxicological tests, including critical effects; (iv) the relevance for the human infant of the neonatal experimental animal models used. The EFSA SC notes that during the period from birth up to 16 weeks, infants are expected to be exclusively fed on breast milk and/or infant formula. The EFSA SC views this period as the time where health‐based guidance values for the general population do not apply without further considerations. High infant formula consumption per body weight is derived from 95th percentile consumption. The first weeks of life is the time of the highest relative consumption on a body weight basis. Therefore, when performing an exposure assessment, the EFSA SC proposes to use the high consumption value of 260 mL/kg bw per day. A decision tree approach is proposed that enables a risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. The additional information needed when testing substances present in food for infants below 16 weeks of age and the approach to be taken for the risk assessment are on a case‐by‐case basis, depending on whether the substance is added intentionally to food and is systemically available., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1248/full

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Calsporin® when used in feed for sows and piglets. The additive contains viable spores of a single strain of Bacillus subtilis. This species is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment, which requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established, evidence that the strain is not toxigenic and that it does not show resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach in the context of previous opinions and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, Calsporin® is presumed safe for all target species, consumers and the environment. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Calsporin® is not a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. Use of the additive in feed for sows and suckling piglets will not introduce hazards for users not already considered. Three trials performed with sows over a complete reproductive cycle and their offspring showed positive effects on zootechnical parameters of sows and piglets. Therefore, Calsporin® has the potential to improve one or more performance parameters of sows and suckling piglets when supplemented to both sows and suckling piglets at 3 × 108 CFU/kg of complete feedingstuffs. In the view of the FEEDAP Panel, the effects observed can predominantly be traced back to the administration of the additive to pregnant/lactating sows. The proportion of effects which could be related to feeding supplemented creep feed to suckling piglets cannot be quantified.

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 annatto F (alkali‐processed norbixin, acid‐precipitated) for cats and dogs. Norbixin is considered safe for cats at a maximum concentration of 13 mg/kg complete feed and for dogs at 16 mg/kg complete feed. Annatto 2.5% is a strong alkaline solution of potassium or sodium hydroxide that makes it corrosive and therefore harmful for the user. Although the ability of the additive to colour feed has generally been demonstrated, no conclusion on the effective concentration can be drawn.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a strain of Lactobacillus hilgardii when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling at a proposed application rate of 1.5 × 108 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. hilgardii is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and as no antibiotic resistance of concern was detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the skin and eye irritancy or skin sensitisation of the additive. The additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. Three studies with laboratory‐scale silos were made using samples of easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage. In each case, replicate silos containing untreated forage were compared with identical silos containing the same forage treated with the combination of Lactobacillus hilgardii CNCM I‐4785 and Lactobacillus buchneri NCIMB 40788 each at an intended concentration of 1.5 × 108 CFU/kg fresh matter each. The results showed that the addition of Lactobacillus hilgardii CNCM I‐4785 at the proposed dose, when used in combination with an equal concentration of Lactobacillus buchneri NCIMB 40788, improves significantly the aerobic stability of the silage tested. This was shown in maize forage with a dry matter content ranging from 30% to 40%.

EFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re‐assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self‐tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSA's remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSA's mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments.

The additive cassia gum consists mainly of high‐molecular weight polysaccharides composed primarily of a linear chain of 1,4‐β‐d‐mannopyranose units with 1,6‐linked α‐d‐galactopyranose units. In 2014, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an opinion on the safety and efficacy of cassia gum. The FEEDAP Panel concluded, based on positive findings observed in a bacterial reverse mutation test with a semirefined cassia gum (about 70 mg anthraquinones/kg) but not with purified semirefined cassia gum that meets the specification as a food additive (

The additive cassia gum consists mainly of high‐molecular weight polysaccharides composed primarily of a linear chain of 1,4‐β‐d‐mannopyranose units with 1,6‐linked α‐d‐galactopyranose units. In 2014, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an opinion on the safety and efficacy of cassia gum. The FEEDAP Panel concluded, based on positive findings observed in a bacterial reverse mutation test with a semirefined cassia gum (about 70 mg anthraquinones/kg) but not with purified semirefined cassia gum that meets the specification as a food additive (

Bergazym® P is a preparation of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (xylanase) that is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive in feed for chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and pigs for fattening at a dose of 1,500 EPU/kg feed. The xylanase is produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded from the tolerance studies submitted that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at 1,500 EPU/kg feed. The conclusions were extended to pigs for fattening. The results obtained with the enzyme concentrate used to formulate the additive in the genotoxicity studies and in the sub‐chronic oral toxicity study do not indicate any reason for concern for consumer safety arising from the use of the product as feed additive. From the data provided on the enzyme concentrate used to formulate the additive, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but it is considered a potential skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that no risks to the environment are expected. To support the efficacy of the additive, the applicant submitted five trials in chickens for fattening, five in weaned piglets and three in pigs for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in chickens for fattening and weaned piglets, but concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at the recommended dose.

In 2015, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐lysine sulfate produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 3705, when used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The Panel concluded that a maximum supplementation of complete feed up to 1% l‐lysine sulfate was considered safe for all animal species; its use in animal feed does not pose a risk to the consumer or the environment; l‐Lysine sulfate was not considered a skin or eye irritant or a skin sensitiser, but should be considered a hazard by inhalation. The applicant originally proposed a specification of minimum 55% lysine. However, based on the data provided in the technical dossier, the FEEDAP Panel recommended that the additive should be specified to a l‐lysine content ≥ 65%. The applicant seeks authorisation for l‐lysine sulfate with a minimum content of 55% l‐lysine. The Commission gave the applicant the possibility of submitting complementary information to complete its assessment. The additional data on the characterisation of the additive containing ≥ 55% l‐lysine showed that > 99% of the product is comprised of known constituents, which do not give rise to safety concerns at the concentrations present. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the conclusions of the previous opinion are applicable to the product l‐lysine produced with E. coli CGMCC 3705 containing ≥ 55% l‐lysine. Specifically, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that a maximum supplementation of complete feed up to 1% l‐lysine sulfate is considered safe for all animal species; that the use in animal feed does not pose a risk to the consumer or the environment; and that l‐Lysine sulfate is not considered a skin or eye irritant or a skin sensitiser, but should be considered a hazard by inhalation.

The additive, ‘Iron dextran 10%’, is a liquid preparation containing iron dextran (25%, of which 10% is total iron), sodium chloride (1.5%), phenol (0.4%) and water (73.1%). Iron dextran 10% is considered safe for suckling piglets when given at an oral dose of 1 mL/kg body weight (bw) once in each of the first 2 weeks of life; this dose corresponds to 100 mg Fe/kg bw. The administration of iron dextran 10% to piglets deficient in vitamin E and/or selenium is considered a risk. The oral use of iron dextran 10% in suckling piglets does not pose any safety concerns to consumers, provided that the conditions identified as safe for the target animal are respected. Iron dextran 10% is considered a respiratory sensitiser and may be harmful if inhaled; however, exposure by inhalation is not expected; therefore, the risk is considered to be negligible. Iron dextran 10% is an irritant to skin and eyes; a risk by skin sensitisation cannot be excluded. The presence of phenol in the additive should be considered to pose a hazard for users. The use of the additive for suckling piglets at the proposed level does not pose a safety concern to the environment. The available studies with orally administered iron dextran indicate that the additive is a bioavailable source of iron for suckling piglets; however, the efficacy of the additive when given to newborn pigs as proposed via water for drinking (voluntary intake) has not been demonstrated. The Panel proposed some recommendations regarding the dextran used in the manufacture of the additive and the procedure for administering the additive to piglets.