Search

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tartrazine as sensory additive (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Tartrazine is intended to be incorporated in fishing baits up to a maximum of 30 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them and attract fish in freshwater (ponds, rivers), for both recreational and competitive fishing. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. Tartrazine is already authorised for use with cats and dogs, ornamental fish, grain-eating ornamental birds and small rodents. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of tartrazine in the preparation of baits for freshwater fish under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the target animals. The use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data, no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of tartrazine in freshwater fish baits., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Ammonium propionate is authorised as a liquid preparation of ≥ 19% ammonium propionate, ≤ 80% propionic acid and ≤ 30% water. The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation of ammonium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of ammonium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin and eyes. Any exposure is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of lutein-rich extract of Tagetes erecta L. as sensory additive (functional group: Colourants (ii) substances which, when fed to animals, add colours to food of animal origin) for turkeys for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening and minor poultry for fattening and laying hens and minor poultry for laying. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of lutein-rich extract of T. erecta is safe for turkeys for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed use level of 80 mg total carotenoids/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that the use of lutein-rich extract of T. erecta in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use would not be of concern for the consumer, considering also its use in other poultry for fattening and for laying hens. Regarding user safety, the lutein-rich extract of T. erecta extract is irritant to skin and eyes and any exposure is considered a risk. The conclusions on user safety reached for the lutein-rich extract of T. erecta would, in principle, apply to preparations made with it. The use of the additive in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to colour the skin of turkeys for fattening at the proposed conditions of use., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long-living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Propionic acid is currently authorised as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicants have provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of propionic acid under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive to the skin and any exposure to users is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of fumaric acid as a technological and sensory additive (functional groups: preservative and flavouring compounds, respectively) and for a new use of the additive as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulator) for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that fumaric acid remains safe under the authorised conditions of use for the terrestrial animals, consumers and the environment. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the aquatic animals under all authorised condition of use. Fumaric acid is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel. The Panel also considers that the new use of the additive as an acidity regulator under proposed conditions of use would not introduce risks not already considered. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation (for its use as preservative and flavouring compound). The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of fumaric acid as an acidity regulator in feed., Competing Interests: The Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to thisscientific output (in alphabetical order of the last name): Anguita and Matteo Lorenzo Innocenti.If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R618 as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying. The additive has never been authorised. The strain under assessment S. cerevisiae (NCYC R618) qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) and, consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the product is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin and eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive under the proposed conditions of use., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo-1,4-β-xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non-irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non-irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the feed additive consisting of 3-phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CECT 13171). The additive is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive for poultry species, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for fattening. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substance used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel could not conclude on the taxonomic identification of the production strain. Moreover, the presence of viable cells of the production strain in the final formulations of the product could not be excluded. Therefore, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety for the target species, consumers, users and environment. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the characterisation of the production strain and the absence of its viable cells in the final product. Based on the data provided, the identification of CECT 13171 as K. phaffii was confirmed and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final formulations of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 3-phytase produced with the genetically modified strain K. phaffii CECT 13171 does not give rise to any safety concern as regard to the production strain. Consequently, the additive, in both its liquid and solid formulations, is safe for the target species, consumers, users and environment., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l-arginine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 7.401). The additive is intended to be used in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The genetic modifications introduced do not raise safety concerns. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. l-Arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed and water. The use of l-arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for persons handling the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or to be a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. The additive l-arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-arginine for non-ruminant species. For supplemental l-arginine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l-valine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 22721) as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed. The use of l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 to irritant to the skin or eyes, a dermal or respiratory sensitiser due to the lack of data. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for users handling the additive when exposed by inhalation. The additive l-valine produced by fermentation using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-valine for non-ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l-valine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 10 8 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 10 8 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%-45%., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and Avemix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both forms of the additive remain safe for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and Avemix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, 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 liquid l-lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l-lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B-67535 and NRRL B-67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B-68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l-Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l-Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-lysine for non-ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l-lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Sorghum plants naturally produce dhurrin, a cyanogenic glycoside that may be hydrolysed to cyanide, resulting in often-lethal toxicoses. Ruminants are particularly sensitive to cyanogenic glycosides due to the active role of rumen microbiota in dhurrin hydrolysis. This work provides an overview of a poisoning outbreak that occurred in 5 farms in Northwest Italy in August 2022; a total of 66 cows died, and many others developed acute toxicosis after being fed on either cultivated ( Sorghum bicolor ) or wild Sorghum ( Sorghum halepense ). Clinical signs were recorded, and all cows received antidotal/supportive therapy. Dead animals were subjected to necropsy, and dhurrin content was determined in Sorghum specimens using an LC-MS/MS method. Rapid onset, severe respiratory distress, recumbency and convulsions were the main clinical features; bright red blood, a bitter almond smell and lung emphysema were consistently observed on necropsy. The combined i.v. and oral administration of sodium thiosulphate resulted in a rapid improvement of clinical signs. Dhurrin concentrations corresponding to cyanide levels higher than the tolerated threshold of 200 mg/kg were detected in sorghum specimens from 4 out of 5 involved farms; thereafter, such levels declined, reaching tolerable concentrations in September-October. Feeding cattle with wild or cultivated Sorghum as green fodder is a common practice in Northern Italy, especially in summer. However, care should be taken in case of adverse climatic conditions, such as severe drought and tropical temperatures (characterising summer 2022), which are reported to increase dhurrin synthesis and storage.

The most frequent adverse effects of AFB1 in chicken are low performance, the depression of the immune system, and a reduced quality of both eggs and meat, leading to economic losses. Since oxidative stress plays a major role in AFB1 toxicity, natural products are increasingly being used as an alternative to mineral binders to tackle AFB1 toxicosis in farm animals. In this study, an in vivo trial was performed by exposing broilers for 10 days to AFB1 at dietary concentrations approaching the maximum limits set by the EU (0.02 mg/kg feed) in the presence or absence of turmeric powder (TP) (included in the feed at 400 mg/kg). The aims were to evaluate (i) the effects of AFB1 on lipid peroxidation, antioxidant parameters, histology, and the expression of drug transporters and biotransformation enzymes in the liver; (ii) the hepatic accumulation of AFB1 and its main metabolites (assessed using an in-house-validated HPLC-FLD method); (iii) the possible modulation of the above parameters elicited by TP. Broilers exposed to AFB1 alone displayed a significant increase in lipid peroxidation in the liver, which was completely reverted by the concomitant administration of TP. Although no changes in glutathione levels and antioxidant enzyme activities were detected in any treatment group, AFB1 significantly upregulated and downregulated the mRNA expression of CYP2A6 and Nrf2, respectively. TP counteracted such negative effects and increased the hepatic gene expression of selected antioxidant enzymes (i.e., CAT and SOD2) and drug transporters (i.e., ABCG2), which were further enhanced in combination with AFB1. Moreover, both AFB1 and TP increased the mRNA levels of ABCC2 and ABCG2 in the duodenum. The latter changes might be implicated in the decrease in hepatic AFB1 to undetectable levels (

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium ferrocyanide as a technological feed additive, functional group anticaking agents, for all animal species. The additive potassium ferrocyanide is intended to be used in potassium chloride with a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anion/kg salt. The use of potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to potassium chloride at a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for: pigs for fattening and lactating sows, sheep, goats, salmon and dogs. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys, piglets, veal calf, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horse, rabbit and cats. In the absence of information on the use of potassium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of potassium chloride, supplemented with 150 mg ferrocyanide/kg, can be made. The use of potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that potassium ferrocyanide is not irritant to skin and eye and is not a skin sensitiser. However, due to the presence of nickel, the additive should be considered as a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. The available data do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to conclude on the safety of the additive for the soil and the marine environment, while the use of the additive in land-based aquaculture according to the proposed conditions of use is considered of no concern. Potassium ferrocyanide is considered to be efficacious as an anticaking agent when included in potassium chloride at the proposed use levels., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium and sodium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. The additives sodium- and potassium ferrocyanide are intended to be used in sodium chloride with a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anion (anhydrous)/kg salt. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anion/kg for: turkey for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds; all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbit, horse, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of sodium and potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys. In the absence of information on the use of sodium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of sodium chloride, supplemented with 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg, could be made. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that sodium and potassium ferrocyanide are not irritant to skin and eye and are not skin sensitisers. However, owing to the presence of nickel, sodium ferrocyanide, is considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be reached on the safety of the user exposed via inhalation for potassium ferrocyanide. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide as feed additives is considered safe for the environment. The additives are considered to be efficacious as anticaking agents in sodium chloride at the proposed use level., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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

This study aimed to set up indirect, rapid methods involving near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy analysis, to detect illicit treatments with glucocorticoids in bull. The ethanol fixation method (EtOH) was applied to 7 different tissues obtained from 20 Friesian bulls, 12 of which were experimentally administered with dexamethasone as part of a growth-promoting protocol for 60 days and slaughtered 26 days after the end of the treatment. A perfect discrimination was obtained for the 7 sampled tissues, considering a full UV-Vis-NIR range (350 ÷ 2500 nm), for both false positive and negative animals. The validated true positive and negative errors were zero for the longissimus thoracis muscle, 10% for the skin- dermis , 15% for the fat, 25% for the thymus gland and the semitendinosus muscle, 30% for the sternomandibularis muscle and 35% for the skin-hair. A multiple test on the most accessible tissues, that is, the thymus gland, the sternomandibularis muscle and fat, can be used as an alternative to provide indications about animals that have been subjected to illicit treatments. In the short space of three days from the slaughter, NIR spectroscopy of ETOH fixed tissues, would allow at least cost the detection of a probable illicit which could eventually be reported to health authorities for specific investigation in the frame of official controls.

Due to the climatic change, an increase in aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) maize contamination has been reported in Europe. As an alternative to mineral binders, natural phytogenic compounds are increasingly used to counteract the negative effects of AFB1 in farm animals. In cows, even low dietary AFB1 concentrations may result in the milk excretion of the genotoxic carcinogen metabolite aflatoxin M1 (AFM1). In this study, we tested the ability of dietary turmeric powder (TP), an extract from Curcuma longa (CL) rich in curcumin and curcuminoids, in reducing AFM1 mammary excretion in Holstein-Friesian cows. Both active principles are reported to inhibit AFM1 hepatic synthesis and interact with drug transporters involved in AFB1 absorption and excretion. A crossover design was applied to two groups of cows ( n = 4 each) with a 4-day washout. Animals received a diet contaminated with low AFB1 levels (5 ± 1 µg/kg) for 10 days ± TP supplementation (20 g/head/day). TP treatment had no impact on milk yield, milk composition or somatic cell count. Despite a tendency toward a lower average AFM1 milk content in the last four days of the treatment (below EU limits), no statistically significant differences with the AFB1 group occurred. Since the bioavailability of TP active principles may be a major issue, further investigations with different CL preparations are warranted.

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

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

In cattle, phenobarbital (PB) upregulates target drug-metabolizing enzyme (DME) mRNA levels. However, few data about PB's post-transcriptional effects are actually available. This work provides the first, and an almost complete, characterization of PB-dependent changes in DME catalytic activities in bovine liver using common probe substrates and confirmatory immunoblotting investigations. As expected, PB increased the total cytochrome P450 (CYP) content and the extent of metyrapone binding; moreover, an augmentation of protein amounts and related enzyme activities was observed for known PB targets such as CYP2B, 2C, and 3A, but also CYP2E1. However, contradictory results were obtained for CYP1A, while a decreased catalytic activity was observed for flavin-containing monooxygenases 1 and 3. The barbiturate had no effect on the chosen hydrolytic and conjugative DMEs. For the first time, we also measured the 26S proteasome activity, and the increase observed in PB-treated cattle would suggest this post-translational event might contribute to cattle DME regulation. Overall, this study increased the knowledge of cattle hepatic drug metabolism, and further confirmed the presence of species differences in DME expression and activity between cattle, humans, and rodents. This reinforced the need for an extensive characterization and understanding of comparative molecular mechanisms involved in expression, regulation, and function of DMEs.

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

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) causes hepatotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and kidney damage, and it is included in group I of human carcinogens. The European Commission has established maximum limits of AFB1 in feed, ranging from 5 to 20 μg/kg. Chicken is moderately sensitive to AFB1, which results in reduced growth performance and economic losses. Oxidative stress triggered by AFB1 plays a crucial role in kidney damage and the antioxidant activity of Curcumin (CURC) could help in preventing such adverse effect. Twenty-days-old broilers were treated for 10 days with AFB1 (0.02 mg/kg feed), alone or in combination with CURC (400 mg/kg feed), to explore the effects on the renal tissue. Animals exposed to AFB1 alone displayed alterations of the oxidative stress parameters compared with controls: serum antioxidant capacity, and enzymatic activity of kidney superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase were decreased, while renal malondialdehyde levels and NADPH oxidase complex expression were increased. The administration of CURC attenuates all the oxidative stress parameters modified by AFB1 in the chicken kidney, opening new perspectives in the management of aflatoxicosis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Damiano, Jarriyawattanachaikul, Girolami, Longobardi, Nebbia, Andretta, Lauritano, Dabbou, Avantaggiato, Schiavone, Badino and Ciarcia.)

Following a request from 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 the additive cashew nutshell liquid as a technological additive (antioxidant) in feedingstuffs for all animal species. The additive cashew nutshell liquid consists of an artificial mixture of two components, the oil extracted from the cashew nutshell, called CNSL and castor oil. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the characterisation of the additive nor to conclude on the safety of cashew nutshell liquid for the target species, the consumer and the environment. The additive is considered skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is unlikely. The additive is an effective antioxidant in feedingstuffs and feed material for all animal species at the proposed conditions of use., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the detection of semicarbazide (SEM) in gelatine by Italian Authorities, at levels exceeding by three times the reference point for action (RPA) of 1 μg/kg, set out by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1871 for nitrofurans and their metabolites, the European Commission mandated EFSA to investigate the available sources of nitrofurans and their metabolites in gelatine. European Commission also asked EFSA to provide approaches that would distinguish SEM occurring due to illegal treatment with nitrofurazone from SEM produced during food processing. The literature indicates that SEM, both free and bound to macromolecules, could occur also in food products such as gelatine, during food processing, arising from the use of disinfecting agents and/or from reactions of various food components and, therefore, SEM cannot be considered as an unequivocal marker of the abuse of nitrofurazone in animal production. It is recommended to investigate in more detail which processing conditions lead to the formation of SEM in gelatine during its production and what levels can be found. One potential approach to distinguishing between SEM from nitrofurazone and SEM from other sources in food products, such as gelatine, might be based on determining the ratio of bound:free SEM in a sample of gelatine. However, whether the ratio of bound:free SEM would unequivocally distinguish between SEM arising from nitrofurazone abuse or from other sources still needs to be demonstrated., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The treatment of choice for feline hyperthyroidism is the administration of the antithyroid drug methimazole. Both the endocrinopathy and the drug adverse reactions (e.g., hepatotoxicosis, gastrointestinal disorders, and renal injury) are partly due to oxidative stress and redox unbalance. This study investigated the free radical production and the impairment of the antioxidant barrier induced by methimazole in an in vitro model of feline renal epithelium. The protective effects of quercetin and resveratrol were also explored. CRFK cells were incubated with a methimazole concentration equivalent to the maximum plasma levels in orally treated cats (4 µM), in the presence or absence of either one of the two selected antioxidants at different time-points (up to 72 h). Cell viability, ROS production, GSH levels, and mRNA expression of antioxidant enzymes (i.e., CAT, SOD, GPx, and GST) were assessed. Methimazole impaired cell viability and increased ROS levels in a time-dependent manner. Similarly, GSH content and CAT, SOD, and GPx3 expression were higher compared with control cells. Such effects were significantly counteracted by quercetin. These results provide new insights about the mechanisms underlying the methimazole-related side effects frequently observed in hyperthyroid cats. They also support the use of quercetin in the management of feline hyperthyroidism.

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., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 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., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)