Search

Abstract 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of diclazuril (Clinacox® 0.5%) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The additive remains safe for the target species and the consumer under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract but is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation cannot be excluded. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the environment of diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% due to lack of data. Diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% at a concentration of 1 mg diclazuril/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying. Development of resistance to diclazuril of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from chickens should be monitored.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the coccidiostat salinomycin sodium (Sacox®) for rabbits for fattening. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of salinomycin sodium (SAL‐Na) from Sacox® does not raise safety concerns for the target species, consumers, users and the environment with regard to the production strain. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of SAL‐Na from Sacox® for rabbits for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumer when it is used at the proposed maximum level of 25 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed for rabbits and a withdrawal period of 1 day is respected. The following maximum residue limits (MRL) are proposed for the marker residue compound salinomycin (SAL): 0.2 and 0.03 mg SAL/kg for liver and kidney, respectively. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes but should be considered a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. A risk for inhalation toxicity could not be excluded. The use of the SAL‐Na from Sacox® in feed for rabbits for fattening up to the highest proposed level will not pose a risk for the terrestrial and aquatic compartment and ground water. The risk of secondary poisoning can be excluded for worm‐eating birds and mammals, while it cannot be excluded for fish‐eating birds and mammals. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that SAL‐Na from Sacox® at the minimum concentration of 20 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in rabbits for fattening. Development of resistance to SAL‐Na of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from rabbits for fattening should be monitored.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monensin sodium (Coxidin®) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Coxidin® remains safe for turkeys for fattening (up to 16 weeks) and extends this conclusion to turkeys reared for breeding (up to 16 weeks). The Panel was not in the position to confirm that the current maximum authorised level of 125 mg monensin sodium/kg complete feed remains safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® at the corresponding maximum authorised/proposed use levels in the target species is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for poultry tissues ensure consumer safety. No withdrawal time is necessary. Both formulations of Coxidin® pose a risk by inhalation. The formulation with wheat bran as a carrier was neither irritant to the skin nor a skin sensitiser but it was irritant to the eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be made on the potential of the formulation containing calcium carbonate to be irritant to skin and eyes and to be a skin sensitiser. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® in complete feed for the target species poses no risk for the terrestrial compartments and for sediment. No risk for groundwater is expected. For chickens for fattening the risk for aquatic compartment cannot be excluded, but no risks are expected for the other animal categories. There is no risk of secondary poisoning. Coxidin® is efficacious in controlling coccidiosis at a level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and at 60 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening. These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding. The Panel noted that there are signs of development of resistance of Eimeria spp. to monensin sodium.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the coccidiostat narasin (Monteban® G100) for chickens for fattening. In a previous opinion, uncertainties remained on the identification and characterisation of the non‐genetically modified production strain of the active substance narasin. The Panel could not conclude either on the safety of Monteban® G100 for chickens for fattening or on the efficacy of the additive at the minimum applied concentration. The FEEDAP Panel excluded risks for environment but the risk for sediment compartment could not be assessed. The applicant provided supplementary information to cover the data gaps and substituted the narasin production strain from Streptomyces spp. NRRL 8092 to Streptomyces spp. NRRL B‐67771. The information submitted to taxonomically identify the production strain did not allow to assign it to any described microbial species. Based on the information provided, the Panel concluded that the use of Monteban® G100 did not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain for the target animal, consumer, user and environment. The Panel concluded that 70 mg narasin/kg complete feed was safe for chickens for fattening with a margin of safety of 1.4; narasin from Monteban® G100 was unlikely to increase shedding of Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni. Narasin, when used in chickens for fattening at 70 mg/kg feed, was not expected to pose a risk to the aquatic compartment and to sediment, while a risk for the terrestrial compartment could not be excluded. No risk for groundwater was expected, nor for secondary poisoning via the terrestrial food chain, but the risk of secondary poisoning via the aquatic food chain could not be excluded. The Panel concluded that 60 mg narasin/kg feed was efficacious in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the environment of diclazuril (Coxiril®) as a coccidiostat feed additive for chickens reared for laying and pheasants. In its previous assessments, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not reach a final conclusion on the risk resulting from the use of diclazuril in acid soil from Coxiril®. On the basis of the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel updates the previous conclusions as follows: no risk is expected for the terrestrial compartment and for sediment when diclazuril is used in chickens reared for laying and to pheasants at the proposed condition of use (in both acidic and non‐acidic soils). No concern for groundwater is expected for both acidic and non‐acidic soils. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn for the aquatic compartment. Diclazuril does not have the potential for bioaccumulation; therefore, a risk of secondary poisoning is unlikely.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a new scientific opinion on the coccidiostat halofuginone hydrobromide (STENOROL®) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening and turkeys for fattening/reared for breeding. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that the safety for turkeys for fattening established in its previous opinion can be extended to turkeys for breeding up to 12 weeks of age. Based on the new data provided on the safety for consumer, environment and efficacy, the Panel updates its previous conclusions as follows: halofuginone hydrobromide is not genotoxic. Applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to the lowest no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.3 μg halofuginone/kg bw is established. The chronic exposure of consumers to residues of halofuginone would amount to 6–19% of the ADI after 3 days of withdrawal. Therefore, the Panel considers that the additive is safe for the consumer of tissues obtained from chickens for fattening and turkeys for fattening fed the additive at a maximum level of 3 mg/kg complete feed at a 3‐day withdrawal time. For control purposes, the Panel recommends the setting of the following maximum residue limits (MRLs): liver, 50 μg/kg; kidney, 40 μg/kg; muscle, 3 μg/kg; skin/fat, 10 μg/kg wet tissue. Based on an updated environmental risk assessment, no concern for groundwater is expected. Halofuginone is unlikely to bioaccumulate and the risk of secondary poisoning is not likely to occur. No safety concerns are expected for terrestrial and aquatic environments. The additive has the potential to control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening and turkeys for fattening/reared for breeding up to 12 weeks of age at a minimum level of 2 mg/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a copper(II)‐betaine complex as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on the results of a tolerance study carried out in chicken, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening when used up to the current maximum authorised levels of copper in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories at the respective maximum copper levels in complete feed authorised in the European Union. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the copper(II)‐betaine complex in animal nutrition at the maximum copper levels authorised for the animal species poses no concern to the safety of consumers. Regarding the safety for the environment, the use of the additive in feed for terrestrial animals and land‐based aquaculture is considered safe under proposed conditions of use. The data available do not allow the conclusion to be made on the safety of the additive for marine sediment when it is used in sea cages. The additive is not a skin irritant, but it is an irritant to the eyes. Due to the traces of nickel, the additive is considered to be a respiratory and skin sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a zinc(II)–betaine complex as nutritional additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening. This conclusion could be extrapolated to all animal species and categories provided that the maximum authorised levels in the EU for total zinc in feed are not exceeded. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the zinc(II)–betaine complex in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety provided that the maximum authorised total zinc levels in feed are respected. The additive is considered to be a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel; it is irritant to the eyes, but not to the skin. The use of the additive in animal nutrition for terrestrial animals and land‐based aquaculture at the proposed use levels is considered safe for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The available data do not allow the conclusion to be made on the safety of the additive for the marine sediment when it is used in sea cages. Based on the deposition of zinc in edible tissues/organs in chickens for fattening, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is a source of bioavailable zinc, comparable to the standard inorganic zinc source, and therefore, the additive is efficacious in meeting the birds zinc requirements. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species and categories.

Abstract 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 of the coccidiostat Aviax 5% (semduramicin sodium) when used in feed for chickens for fattening. In a previous assessment, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the taxonomical identification of the production strain at species level and on the absence of genetic determinants for antimicrobial resistance. In addition, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for the target animals and could not set maximum residue limits to protect consumers. Regarding the safety for the environment, although the use of the additive was considered safe for the terrestrial compartment, a risk for the aquatic compartment and for groundwater pollution could not be excluded. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that there are no safety concerns for the target animals, consumer, user and environment regarding the production strain of semduramicin sodium. Based on the results in the tolerance trial, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening up to the maximum recommended level (25 mg/kg complete feed), but no margin of safety can be established. The use of semduramicin sodium at a maximum level of 25 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening is safe for consumers with no withdrawal time. Based on the new data provided and the current requirements for environmental risk assessment, the use of semduramicin sodium from Aviax 5% in feed for chickens for fattening up to 25 mg/kg complete feed does not pose a risk for groundwater nor for aquatic and sediment compartments, while a risk for the terrestrial compartment cannot be excluded. The bioaccumulation and the risk for secondary poisoning are considered to be low.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Natural ecosystems are frequently exposed to complex mixtures of different chemicals. However, the environmental risk assessment is mainly based on data from individual substances. In this study, the individual and combined effects on the terrestrial earthworm E. fetida exposed to the anionic surfactant sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES) and the pesticides chlorpyrifos (CPF) and imidacloprid (IMI) were investigated, by using the avoidance behaviour as endpoint. Earthworms were exposed to a soil artificially contaminated with five sub-lethal concentrations of each contaminant, both as single substances and in combination of binary and ternary mixtures. Overall results showed that IMI provoked the highest avoidance effect on earthworms, with a concentration value that induced an avoidance rate of 50% of treated organisms (AC50) of 1.30 mg/kg, followed by CPF (AC50 75.26 mg/kg) and SLES (AC50 139.67 mg/kg). The application of the Combination Index (CI) method, indicated that a deviation from the additive response occurred for most of the tested chemical mixtures, leading to synergistic or antagonistic avoidance responses. Synergistic effects were produced by the exposure to the two lowest concentrations of the CPF+IMI mixture, and by the highest concentrations of SLES+CPF and SLES+CPF+IMI mixtures. On the contrary, antagonistic effects were observed at the lowest concentrations of the binary mixtures containing the SLES and at almost all the tested concentrations of the SLES+CPF+IMI mixture (with the exception of the highest tested concentration). These results show that the avoidance test is suitable to assess the detrimental effects exerted on earthworms by chemical mixtures in soil ecosystems and the use of behavioural endpoints can increase the ecological significance of environmental risk assessment procedures.

In this study, the behaviour of Daphnia magna was studied under equipotent and sub-lethal concentrations of two pesticides congeners: chlorpyrifos (CPF; 5 ng L-1 to 50 ng L-1) and chlorpyrifos-methyl (CPF-m; 30 ng L-1 to 300 ng L-1) with aims to assess and compare the behavioural swimming responses (BSRs) of the cladocerans elicited by both compounds at different concentrations and exposure times. A video tracking analysis after 24 h and 48 h of exposure allowed us to evaluate different behavioural responses (distance moved, average velocity, active time, and average acceleration). The results indicate that BSRs are sensitive indicators of sub-lethal stress. Highly concentration- and time-response changes for both compounds were observed during the experiments. In particular, in the first 24 h of exposure, both compounds elicited a similar decreasing trend in swimming behaviour, in which CPF induced the highest decline. Further, hypoactivity was associated with the narcotic effects of both compounds. Conversely, after 48 h of exposure, we observed an increasing tendency in the swimming parameters, particularly at the highest tested concentrations. However, the compounds did not exhibit the same trend. Rather, CPF-m induced high variations from the control groups. This reversal trend could be due to the activation of compensatory mechanisms, such as feeding, searching, or avoidance behaviours. These results suggest that BSRs are measurable active responses of organisms, which are controlled by time.

Abstract 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 for the environment of the coccidiostat Coxar® (nicarbazin) when used in feed for turkeys for fattening. In previous assessments, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of Coxar® for the environment due to concerns on 4,40‐dinitrocarbanilide (DNC, one of the moieties of nicarbazin). On the basis of the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel updates its previous conclusions on the safety of Coxar® for the environment as follows: The use of nicarbazin from Coxar® in complete feed for turkeys does not pose a risk for the terrestrial and aquatic compartment and in sediment. No concern for groundwater is expected. The bioaccumulation potential of nicarbazin in the environment is low.

The law n. 68/2015 focuses on new forms of environmental crimes, such as environmental pollution, environmental disaster, trade of high-radioactive material and omitted reclamation. The law has three main critical points: (1) interpretation of the new penal code articles; (2) difficulty in finding a cause-effect relationship; (3) possible flexibility in the application to legal limits.The paper reports the rules in force concerning the quality of surface waters, suggests criteria to assess the importance of the crime and an interpretation key to define the cases where flexibility can be adopted to evaluate the non compliance of the limits in force.

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

Abstract The additive sorbitan monolaurate consists of sorbitol (and its anhydrides) esterified with fatty acids derived from coconut oil. It is currently authorised in the European Union and it is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group of emulsifiers), in feedingstuffs for all animal species, at a maximum concentration of 85 mg/kg complete feed. In 2019, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of sorbitan monolaurate. Owing the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the environment. The applicant submitted new data (fate and degradation as well as ecotoxicity data) that were evaluated in the present opinion. The absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of structurally related compounds (sorbitan monostearate and sorbitan trioleate) indicate that the additive is expected to be partially metabolised. In addition, sorbitan monolaurate and some related compounds are readily biodegradable. The limited available data on the effects of sorbitan monolaurate in marine crustaceans and in marine sediment indicate that the ecotoxicity of the additive is low, in consistency with the very low acute toxicity of sorbitan esters. Overall, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that a risk of sorbitan monolaurate to terrestrial and aquatic environment is unlikely. Therefore, no safety concerns for the environment are expected from the use of the additive under assessment according to the established conditions of use.

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

Abstract 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 lignosulphonate, when used as a technological additive, functional group: binders. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for target species and for the environment. The applicant provided additional information that was assessed in the current opinion. As regards the safety for the target species, the maximum recommended content of lignosulphonate of 10,000 mg/kg complete feed is considered safe in weaned piglet. A safe concentration of lignosulphonate in feed for salmonids and dairy cows could not be identified. The FEEDAP Panel reiterates also its previous conclusions that ‘10,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is safe for chickens for fattening, laying hens and cattle for fattening but a margin of safety cannot be identified. Therefore, this conclusion cannot be extended to all animal species/categories’. Considering the absence of adverse effects confirmed by all the ecotoxicity studies up to very high concentrations, no concerns for the environment are expected from the use of this additive in animal nutrition according the conditions of use. Lignosulphonate is efficacious as pellet binder.

Abstract 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 additional data submitted on Lancer® when used as a feed additive for weaned piglets. The FEEDAP Panel considered that uncertainty still remains on possible developmental neurotoxicity of Lancer® since it was unable to identify a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for this specific endpoint applying a read‐across strategy from the studies provided by the applicant. However, the FEEDAP Panel considered that the exposure to La and Ce from products of animals treated with Lancer® at 250 mg/kg feed would not add a significant contribution to the background exposure of these elements. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of Lancer® in feed for weaned piglets (up to 120 days) according to the proposed conditions of use, does not represent a safety concern for the consumer and for the environment.

Abstract The feed additive Elancoban® G200, containing the active substance monensin sodium, an ionophore anticoccidial, is intended to control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and turkeys. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer, user and environment with regard to the safety of the production strain. The following conclusions apply to monensin sodium included in the additive. Based on the available data set, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Elancoban® G200 for chickens for fattening. Monensin sodium is safe for turkeys for fattening with a margin of safety of 1.5. Monensin sodium is not genotoxic and not carcinogenic. The pharmacological no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.345 mg monensin sodium/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified in dog. The acceptable daily intake (ADI) derived from this NOAEL is 0.003 mg monensin sodium/kg bw applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Elancoban® G200 is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue limits (MRLs) ensure consumer safety, provided that the withdrawal period of 1 day is respected. Elancoban® G200 is very irritant for the eye, but it is not a skin irritant. Elancoban® G200 should be regarded as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation exposure is considered a risk to persons handling the additive. Elancoban® G200 does not pose a risk for the terrestrial compartment, the aquatic compartment and the sediment. The bioaccumulation potential of monensin in the environment is low. Monensin sodium from Elancoban® G200 has the potential to effectively control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy Elancoban® G200 as a coccidiostat for turkeys for fattening.

Abstract 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 the coccidiostat Monimax® (monensin sodium and nicarbazin) when used in feed for turkeys or chickens for fattening. In previous assessments (2017, 2018), the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of Monimax® for the environment due to concerns on monensin sodium and 4,4′‐dinitrocarbanilide (DNC, one of the moieties of nicarbazin). The applicant provided additional information that has been assessed. The use of monensin sodium from Monimax® in complete feed for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and turkeys for fattening poses no risk for the aquatic compartment, the terrestrial compartment or for sediment. The bioaccumulation potential of monensin in the environment is low. No concerns would arise for the 4,6‐dimethylpyrimidin‐2‐ol (HDP) moiety of nicarbazin excreted from chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and turkeys fed Monimax®. The use of DNC moiety of nicarbazin from Monimax® in complete feed for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and turkeys for fattening poses no risk for the aquatic compartment, the terrestrial compartments or for sediment. The bioaccumulation potential of DNC in the environment is low and the risk for secondary poisoning is not likely to occur

Abstract 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 for the environment of the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the formulation of the additive Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30160. The applicant has proposed to modify the manufacturing process by adding polyethylene glycol (PEG 4000) in the list of potential cryoprotectants that can be used in the freeze‐drying step, up to a maximum concentration of 0.025 mg PEG 4000/kg silage. The use of PEG 4000 as an excipient in formulations with Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30160 would not change the previous conclusions regarding the safety for the target animals, consumers and users. No safety concerns are expected for the environment when PEG 4000 is used as a cryoprotectant in the additive Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30160 up to a maximum concentration of 0.025 mg PEG 4000/kg silage.

Abstract Following the 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 proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of Maxiban® G160. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Maxiban® G160 at a dose level of 70 + 70 mg/kg feed for the target species. The use of Maxiban® G160 in diets for chickens for fattening at the maximum proposed dose complies with the maximum residue levels (MRLs) in force of narasin and 4,4’‐dinitrocarbanilide (DNC) at 0‐day withdrawal except for DNC in kidney which was slightly above the MRL. Compliance with DNC MRLs was seen in all tissues at 1‐day withdrawal. Based on the available data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Maxiban® G160 for the environment due to the risk identified for the terrestrial organisms due to DNC. Moreover, the high persistence and hydrophobicity of DNC indicate that there might be a risk for bioaccumulation but the risk for secondary poisoning was not identified. The potential of DNC to accumulate in soil over the years should be investigated by monitoring in a field study. The FEEDAP Panel would not be in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Maxiban® G160 in chickens for fattening based on the data provided for the dose of 40 + 40 mg narasin + nicarbazin/kg feed.

Mechanized excavation of tunnels with Earth Pressure Balance-Tunnel Boring Machines requires the use of foaming agents. The latter contain the anionic surfactant sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES) as the main compound. The re-use as a by-product of excavated soil containing foaming agents (spoil material) can pose a risk for soil and particularly for aquatic ecosystems if they are close to the spoil material final destination site. This work reports the chemical results (SLES residual concentrations) and ecotoxicological effects (battery of five tests) of 28 day-mesocosm studies performed at a tunnelling construction site. The soil mesocosms were set up with two different lithologies, which contained four different foaming agent products at the highest amounts used for excavation. The decrease in SLES concentrations and the ecotoxicological tests were performed in soil and its water extract (elutriate) at different times (0, 7, 14, 28 d). Elutriates were prepared in order to simulate a possible SLES leaching from soil to water. The results showed a decrease in SLES over time and different ecotoxicological responses depending not only on the initial amount of each product, but also on the soil lithology and organism tested (aquatic or terrestrial). This study showed how only site-specific ecotoxicological evaluations can ensure a safe management of the spoil material, making possible the re-use of soil and avoiding production of waste.

A wide use of foaming agents as lubricants is required in mechanized tunneling. Their main component, the anionic surfactant sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES), can remain in residual concentrations in soil debris, influencing their potential reuse as by-product. This study aimed at evaluating the environmental fate and effects of a foaming product used for conditioning soils collected from real excavation sites, in the presence/absence of an anti-clogging polymer, both containing SLES. Soil microcosm experiments were set-up and incubated for 28 days. Over time, soils and their water extracts (elutriates) were collected to perform both ecotoxicological tests (Vibrio fischeri, Lepidium sativum, Eisenia foetida, Hetereocypris incongruens, Danio rerio) and SLES analysis. The results showed that, just after conditioning, SLES did not exert any hazardous effect on the organisms tested except for the bacterium V. fischeri, which was the most sensitive to its presence. However, from day seven the toxic effect on the bacterium was never observed thanks to the SLES decrease in the elutriates (

Recently, the use of Daphnia magna has been proposed in on-line and real-time biomonitoring programmes as an early warning system for evaluating the effluent quality of sewage treatment plants (STPs). These systems are based on recording behavioural changes in the test organism resulting from the stress caused by the effluents. Indeed, altered behavioural signals could be induced at sublethal concentrations that are significantly lower than the corresponding EC50. However, at present, it is unknown whether the sensitivity of D. magna can be representative of that of other aquatic organisms, particularly benthic macroinvertebrates. An experiment was designed to verify whether D. magna can be employed in biomonitoring programmes for STPs located in alpine areas as a surrogate for cold freshwater best-adapted species. The responses of survival and behaviour alteration to exposure to the effluent of the Tonale Pass plant (Trentino, Italian Alps, 46°N, 10°E; 1799 m a.s.l.) were compared in a laboratory population of D. magna and a wild population of the chironomid Diamesa cinerella. These larvae were collected from the Vermigliana stream 50 metres upstream of the effluent input. Both organisms were exposed for 24 and 48 hrs to the effluent as it is and to three dilutions (/10, /100, /1000). The mortality rate and behavioural responses (using video tracking systems) were recorded. No significant mortality or change in behaviour was observed in the two species when exposed to the undiluted effluent. Exposure to serial dilutions of the treated effluent did not affect the survival of either species but notably altered their behaviour at both exposure times (e.g., the time spent in activity in D. magna and the average speed of movement and the cumulative distance travelled in both), especially when exposed to the ten-times-diluted effluent. Overall, the findings of this study emphasize that even though D. magna and D. cinerella use different behavioural strategies to cope with adverse environmental conditions, their overall sensitivity to treated effluents is similar. Accordingly, the use of D. magna in biological early warning systems protocols seems to also be sufficiently protective for local, cold-adapted species of alpine freshwater ecosystems.