Search

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of locust bean gum as a technological feed additive (functional group: emulsifiers, gelling agents, stabilisers and thickeners) for all animal species. Owing the lack of sufficient data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the target species or the user. The use of locust bean gum in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for consumer safety and the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has potential to be efficacious as gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed when used in synergy with another hydrocolloid (carrageenan). In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the locust bean gum as an emulsifier.

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 Sunset Yellow FCF for cats, dogs, ornamental fish, grain-eating ornamental birds and small rodents when used as an additive that adds or restores colour in feedingstuffs. Sunset Yellow FCF is considered safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: 165 mg/kg for cats, 198 mg/kg for dogs, 733 mg/kg for ornamental fish, 24 mg/kg for grain-eating ornamental birds and 750 mg/kg for small rodents. In the absence of adequate information, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude neither on the eyes and skin irritation potential of Sunset yellow FCF, nor on its skin sensitisation potential. Exposure by inhalation is considered to be unlikely. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of agar as a feed additive for pets and non-food-producing animals. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of agar for pets and other non-food-producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of carrageenan as a feed additive for pets and other non-food-producing animals. The additive is manufactured in two forms, refined and semi-refined carrageenan. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on safety of the additives for pets and other non-food-producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder and emulsifier.

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 sodium alginate for all animal species. The additive is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional groups: thickeners and gelling agents). Sodium alginate is intended to be used in feedingstuffs for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 2,000 mg/kg feed and a maximum concentration of to 30,000 mg/kg feed. The data provided for the composition of the additive does not allow a proper assessment of the product consistency, purity and physico-chemical properties. Sodium alginate is not irritant to skin but should be considered irritant to eyes, a skin and respiratory sensitiser and hazardous by inhalation. Sodium alginate is a high-molecular-weight polymer naturally occurring in brown algae. The use of sodium alginate in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and the environment. No conclusion could be drawn on the safety of sodium alginate for the target species or on its efficacy as a thickener or gelling agent in feed.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The additive sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, is proposed to be manufactured in two different forms, amorphous and crystalline, characterised by different ratios among the main components, silica, aluminium and sodium. In the absence of adequate data, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, in both the amorphous and crystalline forms, for the target species, the consumer and the user. The use of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a feed additive was considered safe for the environment. In the absence of appropriate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a technological additive.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 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.

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 iron (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate for all animal species, brand name Availa® Fe, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 9% iron. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to include a minimum specification for free amino acids of 18%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (iron), with an inclusion level of 9–10%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2330. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of iron in the dust, it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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

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) DSM 26571 when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 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 to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly 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. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 26571 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile forage material.

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

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 × 109 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 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.

In 2012, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of acetic acid when used as a technological additive (preservative) for all animal species. The characterisation and condition of use of the additive are the same as those already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the previous opinion on acetic acid. Acetic acid produced with the new manufacturing process complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the conclusions reached in the previous assessment apply to the acetic acid produced by the new manufacturing process. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for poultry, pigs and pet animals at a maximum concentration of 2.5 g acetic acid/kg complete feed (or 1 g/L water for drinking). The known high endogenous production of acetic acid in the ruminants shows that the tolerance of these target animals is considerably higher. No data is available for salmonids. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The risks for users handling the additive depend on the concentration and include skin, eyes, and respiratory tract irritation (10–25% solution) and corrosion (> 25% solution). The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as preservative in feedingstuffs and water for drinking. The FEEDAP Panel has some reservations about the effectiveness of acetic acid as preservative in dry feedingstuffs with a typical moisture content of ≤ 12%.

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 phyllite, a natural mixture of minerals of metamorphic origin, as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive, specified to contain at least 40% of mica, muscovite, illite, chlorite and talc as the main components, and maximum 60% of quartz, potassium‐feldspar, sodium‐feldspar and calcite, is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: (i) anticaking agents) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species at a maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg. The additive is safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying/breeding at the maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg feed, with no margin of safety determined. Owing the absence of data in pigs and ruminants and in the absence of data on the potential genotoxicity of the additive, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for any other animal species/categories. The additive is considered safe for the consumers and the environment at the proposed conditions of use. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant and skin sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as an anticaking agent.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ferric (III) ammonium hexacyanoferrate (II) as technological feed additive for ruminants (domestic and wild), calves prior the start of rumination, lambs prior the start of rumination, kids prior the start of rumination and pigs (domestic and wild). The additive is already authorised for use in ruminants (domestic and wild), calves prior the start of rumination, lambs prior the start of rumination, kids prior the start of rumination and pigs (domestic and wild). The additive is effective at the minimum recommended concentration of 50 mg/kg complete feedingstuffs (corresponding to about 10 mg/10 kg bw) in reducing the contamination of food derived from ruminants (domestic and wild), calves, lambs and kids prior to the start of rumination, and pigs (domestic and wild) by caesium. Considering the scarce information available, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species. The use of ferric (III) ammonium hexacyanoferrate (II) in feed for ruminants, calves, lambs, kids and pigs at the maximum recommended concentration of 500 mg/kg feed (corresponding to about 150 mg ferric (III) ammonium hexacyanoferrate (II)/10 kg bw) is safe for the consumer. In the absence of data, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the user. The use of ferric (III) ammonium hexacyanoferrate (II) as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment.

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.

The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Cu) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered two opinions (in 2008 and 2009) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 18% copper, 79.5−81% (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (DL‐methionine hydroxy analogue, HMTBa) and 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process, the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 16% copper and ≥ 78% HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Mintrex®Cu is considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser; the risk of respiratory sensitisation is considered low. The present application 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.

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 additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuff. The bacterial species Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety 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 the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel was assigned to this mandate. Based on the results of a tolerance study, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that ferrous lysinate sulfate is safe in chickens for fattening when used up to the current maximum authorised levels of total iron in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories, at the respective maximum authorised iron levels in complete feed. The use of ferrous lysinate sulfate in animal nutrition up to the maximum iron content in complete feed authorised in the EU poses no concern to the safety of consumers. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ferrous lysinate sulfate poses a risk to users by inhalation; the additive is not a dermal irritant, but is irritant to eyes and a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of ferrous lysinate sulfate in animal nutrition would not pose a risk for the environment. Owing to the limitations in the study provided, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for chickens for fattening, and thus, on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species and categories.

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 additive consisting of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 when used as technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuffs. The bacterial species Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety 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 the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

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 additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 when used as technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuff. The bacterial species Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety 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 the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium; KemTRACE‐Cr) as zootechnical feed additive for all growing poultry species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel was assigned to this mandate. Based on two tolerance studies submitted, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed from KemTRACE‐Cr, but a margin of safety cannot be established; this conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding, but cannot be extrapolated to other growing poultry species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition at the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer. No concerns for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive are expected; the additive was shown to be corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition according to the proposed conditions of use will not significantly alter the concentration in the receiving environmental compartments of concern; therefore, no safety concern is expected for the environment. Based on three efficacy studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that KemTRACE‐Cr has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed; this conclusion could be extended to chickens reared for laying and chickens reared for breeding, and extrapolated to other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding.

The additive tragacanth gum is intended to be used as a technological additive (category: technological additive; functional groups: emulsifier, stabiliser, thickener, gelling agent) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the characterisation and identification, the safety for the target species and the efficacy of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive tragacanth gum as a technological additive for all animal species.

Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the users of the feed additive consisting of ferric citrate chelate (CI‐FER™) when used as a zootechnical additive for suckling and weaned piglets and minor porcine species. The EC request follows a previous opinion of the FEEDAP Panel. In that opinion, the Panel identified several risks for the users of the additive; it was listed that it posed a risk to users by inhalation, should be considered as an irritant to skin, eyes and mucous membranes, and also that, due to its nickel content, should be considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The applicant provided additional data including information on the manufacturing process of the additive and data supporting the safety of the additive for the users to address those concerns. Some changes have been applied to the original manufacturing process which led to a dust‐free additive, with the following specifications: total iron ≤ 23%, iron (III) ≥ 16.5% and moisture ≤ 10.0%. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that CI‐FER™ does not pose a risk by inhalation and is classified as non‐irritant to the skin. The additive should be classified as a skin sensitiser. In the absence of new data, the FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusion that the additive should be considered irritant to eyes.

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 additive consisting of Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii ATCC PTA‐6752 when used as technological additive (acidity regulator) in dry feed at a minimum inclusion level of 2 × 109 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg and in complete or complementary liquid feed for all animal species at a minimum concentration of 1 × 109 CFU/L. No minimum concentration is proposed by the applicant when used in combination with other microbial technological additives. The bacterial species P. freudenreichii is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. 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 the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely. No conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of the additive when used alone as an acidity regulator in feed due to lack of data. The studies provided showed that P. freudenreichii ssp. shermanii ATCC PTA‐6752 when used in combination with Ligilactobacillus animalis ATCC PTA‐6750 has the potential to act as an acidity regulator. However, the Panel has reservations on the effects of this mixture in practical use conditions.

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 renewal of the authorisation of Bacillus subtilis PB6, the extension of use to ornamental, sporting and game birds and a modification on the concentration of the said additive. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus subtilis. During the course of the current assessment, the active agent has been redesignated as Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent is established and the compliance with the other qualifications confirmed. Therefore, B. velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. The additive is not a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is unlikely. In the previous assessments performed by the FEEDAP Panel, the additive showed to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in feedingstuffs for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg. Considering that efficacy at the same level has been shown, this conclusion is extrapolated to ornamental, sporting and gaming birds.

The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Mn) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered three opinions (in 2008, 2009 and 2010) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 15.5−17 % manganese, 77−78 % (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (dl‐Methionine Hydroxy Analogue, HMTBa) and maximum 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 14 % manganese and ≥ 76 % HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Owing to the manganese and nickel content of Mintrex®Mn, the handling of the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation; the additive is not a skin or eye irritant but is considered as a skin sensitiser. The present application 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.

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 Correlink™ ABS747 Bacillus subtilis (hereafter designated as Correlink™ ABS747) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding and minor growing poultry species. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus subtilis, which in the course of the current assessment, was reclassified as Bacillus velezensis NRRL B‐67257. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, lacks toxigenic potential and does not have the capacity to produce aminoglycosides. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment, B. velezensis NRRL B‐67257 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, Correlink™ ABS747 is also considered safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Correlink™ ABS747 is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser but is a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Correlink™ ABS747 for the target species due to lack of data.

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 hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional group: stabiliser) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose for the user. The use of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.