Search

In the pursuit of scalable and energy-efficient neuromorphic devices, recent research has unveiled a novel category of spiking oscillators, termed thermal neuristors. These devices function via thermal interactions among neighboring vanadium dioxide resistive memories, emulating biological neuronal behavior. Here, we show that the collective dynamical behavior of networks of these neurons showcases a rich phase structure, tunable by adjusting the thermal coupling and input voltage. Notably, we identify phases exhibiting long-range order that, however, does not arise from criticality, but rather from the time non-local response of the system. In addition, we show that these thermal neuristor arrays achieve high accuracy in image recognition and time series prediction through reservoir computing, without leveraging long-range order. Our findings highlight a crucial aspect of neuromorphic computing with possible implications on the functioning of the brain: criticality may not be necessary for the efficient performance of neuromorphic systems in certain computational tasks.

Abstract In the pursuit of scalable and energy-efficient neuromorphic devices, recent research has unveiled a novel category of spiking oscillators, termed “thermal neuristors.” These devices function via thermal interactions among neighboring vanadium dioxide resistive memories, emulating biological neuronal behavior. Here, we show that the collective dynamical behavior of networks of these neurons showcases a rich phase structure, tunable by adjusting the thermal coupling and input voltage. Notably, we identify phases exhibiting long-range order that, however, does not arise from criticality, but rather from the time non-local response of the system. In addition, we show that these thermal neuristor arrays achieve high accuracy in image recognition and time series prediction through reservoir computing, without leveraging long-range order. Our findings highlight a crucial aspect of neuromorphic computing with possible implications on the functioning of the brain: criticality may not be necessary for the efficient performance of neuromorphic systems in certain computational tasks.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Lietpak (EU register number RECYC327), which uses the EREMA MPR technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Abstract We explored whether isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) is useful to investigate the origin of falsified antimalarials. Forty-four falsified and genuine antimalarial samples (artesunate, artemether-lumefantrine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and sulphamethopyrazine-pyrimethamine) were analyzed in bulk for carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O) element concentrations and stable isotope ratios. The insoluble fraction (“starch”) was extracted from 26 samples and analyzed. Samples of known geographical origin maize, a common source of excipient starch, were used to produce a comparison dataset to predict starch source. In both an initial (n = 18) and a follow-on set of samples that contained/claimed to contain artesunate/artemether (n = 26), falsified antimalarials had a range of C concentrations less than genuine comparator antimalarials and δ13C values higher than genuine comparators. The δ13C values of falsified antimalarials suggested that C4 plant-based organic material (e.g., starch derived from maize) had been included. Using the known-origin maize samples, predictions for growth water δ18O values for the extracted “starch” ranged from − 6.10 to − 1.62‰. These findings suggest that IRMS may be a useful tool for profiling falsified antimalarials. We found that C4 ingredients were exclusively used in falsified antimalarials versus genuine antimalarials, and that it may be possible to predict potential growth water δ18O values for the starch present in falsified antimalarials.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Ecopacking (EU register number RECYC324), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor ■■■■■ before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Bacillus licheniformis strain AE‐TA by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in eight food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include one additional process and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining seven processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.382 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process KGL (EU register number RECYC326), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Abstract The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium caseifulvum strain AE‐LRF by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.013 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 69 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 5308. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. However, the Panel noted that traces of ■■■■■, used in the manufacture of the triacylglycerol lipase, may be found in the food enzyme. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure could not be excluded, particularly in individuals sensitised to fish. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme laccase (benzenediol:oxygen oxidoreductase, i.e. EC 1.10.3.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trametes hirsuta strain AE‐OR by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in six food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include three additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.030 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 28,733. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Guolong (EU register number RECYC323), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Abstract In the context of entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2022/1616, EFSA updated the scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for the authorisation or for the modification of an existing authorisation of a ‘post‐consumer mechanical PET’ recycling process (as defined in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2022/1616) intended to be used for manufacturing materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. This Guidance describes the evaluation criteria and the scientific evaluation approach that EFSA will apply to assess the decontamination capability of recycling processes, as well as the information required to be included in an application dossier. The principle of the scientific evaluation approach is to apply the decontamination efficiency of a recycling process, obtained from a challenge test with surrogate contaminants, to a reference contamination level for post‐consumer PET, set at 3 mg/kg PET for a contaminant resulting from possible misuse. The resulting residual concentration of each surrogate in recycled PET is then compared to a modelled concentration in PET that is calculated using generally recognised conservative migration models, such that the related migration does not give rise to a dietary exposure exceeding 0.0025 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day. This is the lowest threshold for toxicological concern (TTC) value, i.e. for potential genotoxicity, below which the risk to human health would be negligible. The information to be provided in the applications relates to: the recycling process (i.e. collection and pre‐processing of the input, decontamination process, post‐processing and intended use); the determination of the decontamination efficiency by the challenge test; the self‐evaluation of the recycling process. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the mechanical PET recycling process.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐glucosidase (β‐D‐glucoside glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.21) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium guanacastense strain AE‐GLY by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 4.054 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 943 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 233. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme asparaginase (l‐asparagine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain ASP by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in the prevention of acrylamide formation in foods and in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.792 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level at the highest dose tested of 1038 mg TOS/kg bw per day, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1311. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Carum carvi L. (caraway oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of caraway oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 24 mg/kg for sows, 35 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 11 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, 10 mg/kg for dairy cows, sheep, goats, horses and rabbits, 25 mg/kg for salmonids and dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of caraway oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since C. carvi 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.

Abstract The food enzyme subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus paralicheniformis strain AP‐01 by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. It was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed in one process, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining four food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.875 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The production strain of the food enzyme has the capacity to produce bacitracin and thus failed to meet the requirements of the Qualified Presumption of Safety approach. Bacitracin was detected in the industrial fermentation medium but not in the food enzyme itself. However, the limit of detection of the analytical method used for bacitracin was not sufficient to exclude the possible presence of bacitracin at a level representing a risk for the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and twenty‐eight matches with respiratory allergens, one match with a contact allergen and two matches with food allergens (melon and pomegranate) were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to melon or pomegranate, cannot be excluded, but would not exceed the risk of consuming melon or pomegranate. Based on the data provided, the Panel could not exclude the presence of bacitracin, a medically important antimicrobial, and consequently the safety of this food enzyme could not be established.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Apium graveolens L. (celery seed oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of celery seed oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.6 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 2.3 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.1 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg for piglets, 3.3 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 4.1 mg/kg for sows, 6.5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 6.2 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 4.0 mg/kg for dairy cows, 2.5 mg/kg for rabbits, 6.8 mg/kg for salmonids and 7.2 mg/kg for dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of celery seed oil in animals feed is not expected to pose concern for the consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde and bergapten may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since A. graveolens 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.

Abstract The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐GT by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in five food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to thirteen additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of eighteen food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining sixteen processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.678 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐l‐rhamnosidase (α‐l‐rhamnoside rhamnohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.40) is produced with Penicillium adametzii strain AE‐HP by Amano Enzymes Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in two food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.022 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (300 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 13,636. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme 3‐phytase (myo‐inositol‐hexakisphosphate 3‐phosphohydrolase EC 3.1.3.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PHY93‐08 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two of the food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.763 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise safety concerns. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 2560 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 3355. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Fucine Film (EU register number RECYC322), which uses the Reifenhäuser technology. The input material consists of hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are extruded under vacuum into sheets. The recycled sheets are intended to be used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, excluded drinking water and beverages, for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill. Based on the limited data available, the Panel concluded that the information submitted to EFSA was inadequate to demonstrate that the recycling process Fucine Film is able to reduce potential unknown contamination of the input PET flakes to a concentration that does not pose a risk to human health.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Palamidis (EU register number RECYC325), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Abstract The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐NP by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in thirteen food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of fifteen food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining thirteen processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 35.251 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Quillaja saponaria powder and Yucca schidigera powder (Magni‐Phi®) for all avian species (to slaughter age/weight, or to the point of lay) and ornamental birds, as a zootechnical additive (digestibility enhancer and other zootechnical additives). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the level of 250 mg/kg complete feed with a margin of safety of 20 assuming that the additive contains 3.58% of saponins. This conclusion was extrapolated to all growing poultry species and ornamental birds. The Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition at 250 mg/kg complete feed is of no concern for the safety for the consumer and the environment. The Panel also concluded that the additive is not irritant to skin, but irritant to the eyes and to the respiratory system. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all poultry species and ornamental birds.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the dried flower bud of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry (clove tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■) solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 1.66%. The product contains on average 0.511% phenolic acids (of which 0.0344% were flavonoids), 0.039% eugenol, 0.00019% methyleugenol and 0.00008% estragole. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of clove tincture is very unlikely to be of safety concern for the target species up to the maximum proposed use level of 50 mg clove tincture/kg complete feed for all animal species, except for horses, for which the proposed use level is 200 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use in water for drinking alone or in combination with use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered very unlikely to be of safety concern when consumed via feed alone. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of clove tincture up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment 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 methyleugenol and estragole may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the flower buds of S. aromaticum and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The food enzyme inulinase (1‐β‐d‐fructan fructanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.7) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus welwitschiae strain NZYM‐KF by Novozymes A/S. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of fructo‐polysaccharides for the production of fructo‐oligosaccharides. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during the food manufacturing process, toxicological studies other than allergenicity were considered unnecessary and dietary exposure was not calculated. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with tomato allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to tomato, cannot be excluded, but is expected not to exceed that of tomato. As the prevalence of allergic reactions to tomato is low, also the likelihood of such reactions to occur to the food enzyme is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme sucrose phosphorylase (sucrose: phosphate α‐d‐glucosyltransferase; EC 2.4.1.7) is produced with the genetically modified Escherichia coli strain LE1B109‐pPB129 by c‐LEcta GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in combination with a cellobiose phosphorylase in the production of the specialty carbohydrate cellobiose. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids are removed by the downstream purification steps, the Panel considered that toxicological studies other than assessment of allergenicity were unnecessary and a dietary exposure was not estimated. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tinctures obtained from the dried leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (ginkgo tinctures) when used as sensory additives. The tinctures are water/ethanol solutions with a dry matter content of 5.7% (tincture A) and 3.0% (tincture B). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additives under assessment are safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: (i) ginkgo tincture A at 240 mg/kg for horses and 750 mg/kg for dogs; (ii) ginkgo tincture B at 600 mg/kg for horses and 50 mg/kg for all other animal species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of ginkgo tinctures up to the maximum proposed use level in feed for the target species. The tinctures should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of ginkgo tinctures at the proposed use levels in feed for the target species is not considered to be a risk to the environment. While the available data indicate that Ginkgo preparations have a distinctive flavour profile, there is no evidence that ginkgo tinctures would impart flavour to a food or feed matrix. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additives.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan maltohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus flexus strain AE‐BAF by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in three food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to four additional processes and revised the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for use in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated only for the remaining six processes. The dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.247 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the dietary exposure revised in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citronella oil obtained from the leaves of Cymbopogon nardus (L.) Rendle, 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 citronella oil from C. nardus is of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals at the use levels in complete feed of 3.5 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 6 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 9.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats and horses, 2.0 mg/kg for cats and 10 mg/kg for dogs. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at concentrations of 18 mg/kg in chickens for fattening, 24 mg/kg in turkeys for fattening, 20 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats for meat production, horses for meat production and rabbits for meat production, and 30 mg/kg for salmonids. The conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. For any other species, the additive is considered of low concern at 2.0 mg/kg complete feed. The use of citronella oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for the consumers and for the environment. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the leaves of C. nardus 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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of amines, di‐C14‐C18‐alkyl, oxidised, renamed by the Panel as amines, di‐C14‐C20‐alkyl, oxidised, from hydrogenated vegetable oil. The substance amines, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) oxidised, consisting of the same components, but originating from tallow, is currently authorised as FCM substance No 768. The vegetable‐sourced substance is intended to be used at up to 0.1% w/w as antioxidant and/or stabiliser in the manufacture of polyolefin food contact materials (FCM) and articles intended for contact with dry, aqueous and acidic foods. The substance is a mixture consisting of linear N,N‐dialkyl hydroxylamines and their corresponding amine, nitrone and oxime derivatives, as well as further components: tert‐N‐oxides, secondary amides and carboxylic acids. Specific migration was tested from polyethylene samples in 10% ethanol and 3% acetic acid for 2 h at 100°C followed by 10 days at 60°C. None of the non‐authorised components were detected to migrate at detection limits (LoD) in the range 0.003–0.029 mg/kg. The LoD of authorised carboxylic acids was 0.35 mg/kg. The Panel reassessed the genotoxicity studies carried out on FCM No 768 and evaluated two new bacterial reverse mutation tests on the nitrone and oxime derivatives as well as new (qualitative/quantitative) structure–activity relationship (Q)SAR analyses on other components. The Panel concluded that the substance did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. The Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for the consumers if it is used as an additive at 0.1% w/w in the manufacture of polyolefin FCM intended to be in contact with foods simulated by food simulants A, B, C and E, except for infant formula and human milk, for storage above 6 months at room temperature and below, including hot‐fill conditions and heating up to 100°C for 2 h.

Abstract The food enzyme glucan 1,4‐α‐glucosidase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizopus arrhizus strain AE‐G by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in one food manufacturing process. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to nine additional processes and revised the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for uses in a total of 10 food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining eight processes. Dietary exposure was up to 0.424 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (1868 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 4406. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the margin of exposure revised in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Bacillus licheniformis strain AE‐TA by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining six processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.056 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The production strain of the food enzyme fulfils the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Consequently, in the absence of other concerns, the Panel considered that toxicological studies were not needed for the safety assessment of this food enzyme. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with respiratory allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded (except for the production of distilled alcohol), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme with phospholipase A1 (phosphatidycholine 1‐acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.32) and lysophospholipase (2‐lysophosphatidylcholine acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.5) activities is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PLN by DSM. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used for the production of refined edible fats and oils by degumming. Since residual amounts of total organic solids are removed during this process, dietary exposure was not calculated and toxicological studies were considered unnecessary for the assessment of this food enzyme. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme laccase (benzenediol:oxygen oxidoreductase; EC 1.10.3.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trametes hirsuta strain AE‐OR by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.026 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 33,154. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Macleaya cordata (Willd.) R. Br. extract and leaves (Sangrovit® Extra) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. The additive is standardised to contain a concentration of the sum of the four alkaloids sanguinarine, chelerythrine, protopine and allocryptopine of 1.25%, with 0.5% sanguinarine. Owing to the presence of the DNA intercalators sanguinarine and chelerythrine, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns for the target species when the additive is used at the recommended level of 0.750 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. Since in all consumer categories the exposure to sanguinarine and chelerythrine via the use of Sangrovit® Extra exceeds the threshold of toxicological concern of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumers. The additive was shown to be irritant to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential of the additive to be a respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to sanguinarine and chelerythrine may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of users should be reduced. The use of Sangrovit® Extra as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for the environment. The additive Sangrovit® Extra had the potential to be efficacious in improving performance of weaned piglets at 0.600 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae.

Abstract The food enzyme carboxypeptidase D (EC 3.4.16.6) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae strain NZYM‐MK by Novozymes A/S. It is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.908 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 2220 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 2445. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches were found, one with a food allergen (wheat). The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to wheat, cannot be excluded, but will not exceed that of wheat consumption. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the leaves of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus tincture) when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 1.86%, which contains on average 0.454% phenolic acids and flavonoids (of which 0.280% was gallic acid), 0.0030% 1,8‐cineole and 0.00012% methyleugenol. In the absence of analytical data on the occurrence of mono‐ or diformylated adducts of acylphloroglucinols with terpenes in the tincture and in the absence of toxicity data, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the use of eucalyptus tincture for long‐living and reproductive animals. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at 4 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 6 mg/kg for piglets and rabbits for meat production, 7 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 14 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses for fattening, and 15 mg/kg for salmonids. These levels were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of eucalyptus tincture up to the levels in feed considered of no concern. Eucalyptus tincture should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of eucalyptus tincture as a flavour in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of E. globulus and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The food enzyme cellobiose phosphorylase (cellobiose: phosphate α‐d‐glucosyltransferase; EC 2.4.1.20) is produced with the genetically modified Escherichia coli strain LE1B109‐pPB130 by c‐LEcta GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in combination with a sucrose phosphorylase in the production of the specialty carbohydrate cellobiose. Since residual amounts of total organic solids are removed by downstream purification steps, the Panel considered that toxicological studies other than assessment of allergenicity were unnecessary and a dietary exposure was not estimated. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the wood of Juniperus deppeana Steud. (cedarwood Texas oil), 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 the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses, dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 8 mg/kg for laying hens, 7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 10 mg/kg for piglets, 12 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 14 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 8.5 mg/kg for rabbits and 4 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 4 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cedarwood Texas oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Since the individual components of cedarwood Texas oil are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The food enzyme with two declared activities, bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) and subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62), is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AR‐383 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The food enzyme is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in the production of distilled alcohol, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining eight food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 1.958 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment and no issues of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made, and 30 matches were found, including one food allergen (melon). The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but for individuals sensitised to melon, this would not exceed the risk of consuming melon. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Bacillus paralicheniformis, a species known to produce the antimicrobial bacitracin, could be misidentified as Bacillus licheniformis, depending on the identification method used. For this reason, the European Commission requested EFSA to review the taxonomic identification of formerly assessed B. licheniformis production strains. Following this request, EFSA retrieved the raw data from 27 technical dossiers submitted and found that the taxonomic identification was established by 16S rRNA gene analyses for 15 strains and by whole genome sequence analysis for 12 strains. As a conclusion, only these 12 strains could be unambiguously identified as B. licheniformis.

The inauguration of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) early in 2003 coincided with the introduction of new and extensively revised legislation in the form of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 controlling the use of feed additives in the European Union (EU). Inevitably this legislation has had a defining effect on the range and extent of the work undertaken by the Panel. For the first time this Regulation included groups of feed additives not previously assessed, such as those designed to improve ensiling or to reduce the uptake of mycotoxins. Many hundreds of flavouring substances never assessed before are also foreseen for “re-evaluation”. The scope of the work undertaken by the FEEDAP Panel is extremely broad and derives both from the range of materials used as additives and the scope of the assessment required by the legislation. Thus additives may range from mineral clays to micro-organisms and from colourants to coccidiostats. For each, the legislation requires an assessment of safety for the target animal, for consumers of products derived from treated animals, for the environment and for those handling the additive during feed processing or on-farm and is also required the assessment of efficacy . During these nine years, the Panel has made considerable efforts to provide applicants with guidance documents to help them in the preparation of the dossier and with the aim of increasing transparency to set the basis for the assessment to be made by the Panel.