Search

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, the EFSA 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 coccidiostat semduramicin sodium (Aviax 5%) when used in feed for chickens for fattening. The additive Aviax 5% is intended to be used as a coccidiostat in feed for chickens for fattening at a level of 20–25 mg semduramicin sodium/ kg complete feed. The safety and efficacy of the additive was evaluated by the FEEDAP Panel in 2018 and 2022. In those opinions it was concluded that the additive is safe for the target species and consumer, while no conclusions could be made on the irritancy of Aviax 5% to skin and eye and on the potential for dermal and respiratory sensitisation. Regarding the safety for the environment, the Panel concluded that a risk for the terrestrial compartment could not be excluded. Based on new data submitted, no risk is expected from the use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed conditions of use for the terrestrial compartment. The previous conclusions of the FEEDAP Panel on the safety of the additive for the environment can be updated as follows: 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, terrestrial and sediment compartments.

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, 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.

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.

Abstract Environmental water quality monitoring aims to provide the data required for safeguarding the environment against adverse biological effects from multiple chemical contamination arising from anthropogenic diffuse emissions and point sources. Here, we integrate the experience of the international EU-funded project SOLUTIONS to shift the focus of water monitoring from a few legacy chemicals to complex chemical mixtures, and to identify relevant drivers of toxic effects. Monitoring serves a range of purposes, from control of chemical and ecological status compliance to safeguarding specific water uses, such as drinking water abstraction. Various water sampling techniques, chemical target, suspect and non-target analyses as well as an array of in vitro, in vivo and in situ bioanalytical methods were advanced to improve monitoring of water contamination. Major improvements for broader applicability include tailored sampling techniques, screening and identification techniques for a broader and more diverse set of chemicals, higher detection sensitivity, standardized protocols for chemical, toxicological, and ecological assessments combined with systematic evidence evaluation techniques. No single method or combination of methods is able to meet all divergent monitoring purposes. Current monitoring approaches tend to emphasize either targeted exposure or effect detection. Here, we argue that, irrespective of the specific purpose, assessment of monitoring results would benefit substantially from obtaining and linking information on the occurrence of both chemicals and potentially adverse biological effects. In this paper, we specify the information required to: (1) identify relevant contaminants, (2) assess the impact of contamination in aquatic ecosystems, or (3) quantify cause–effect relationships between contaminants and adverse effects. Specific strategies to link chemical and bioanalytical information are outlined for each of these distinct goals. These strategies have been developed and explored using case studies in the Danube and Rhine river basins as well as for rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Current water quality assessment suffers from biases resulting from differences in approaches and associated uncertainty analyses. While exposure approaches tend to ignore data gaps (i.e., missing contaminants), effect-based approaches penalize data gaps with increased uncertainty factors. This integrated work suggests systematic ways to deal with mixture exposures and combined effects in a more balanced way, and thus provides guidance for future tailored environmental monitoring.

Abstract The present monitoring and assessment of the chemical status of water bodies fail to characterize the likelihood that complex mixtures of chemicals affect water quality. The European Collaborative Project SOLUTIONS suggests that this likelihood can be estimated with effect-based methods (EBMs) complemented by chemical screening and/or impact modeling. These methods should be used to identify the causes of impacted water quality and to develop programs of measures to improve water quality. Along this line of reasoning, effect-based methods are recommended for Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring to cover the major modes of action in the universe of environmentally relevant chemicals so as to evaluate improvements of water quality upon implementing the measures. To this end, a minimum battery of bioassays has been recommended including short-term toxicity to algae, Daphnia and fish embryos complemented with in vitro and short-term in vivo tests on mode-of-action specific effects as proxies for long-term toxicity. The likelihood of adverse impacts can be established with effect-based trigger values, which differentiate good from poor water quality in close alignment with Environmental Quality Standards for individual chemicals, while taking into account mixture toxicity. The use of EBMs is suggested in the WFD as one avenue to establish the likelihood of adverse effects due to chemical pollution in European water systems. The present paper has been written as one component of a series of policy briefs to support decisions on water quality monitoring and management under the WFD.

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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues reviewed the guidance on how aged sorption studies for pesticides should be conducted, analysed and used in regulatory assessment. The inclusion of aged sorption is a higher tier in the groundwater leaching assessment. The Panel based its review on a test with three substances taken from a data set provided by the European Crop Protection Association. Particular points of attention were the quality of the data provided, the proposed fitting procedure of aged sorption experiments and the proposed method for combining results obtained from aged sorption studies and lower‐tier studies on degradation and adsorption. Aged sorption was a relevant process in all cases studied. The test revealed that the guidance could generally be well applied and resulted in robust and plausible results. The Panel considers the guidance suitable for use in the groundwater leaching assessment after the recommendations in this Scientific Opinion have been implemented, with the exception of the use of field data to derive aged sorption parameters. The Panel noted that the draft guidance could only be used by experienced users because there is no software tool that fully supports the work flow in the guidance document. It is therefore recommended that a user‐friendly software tool be developed. Aged sorption lowered the predicted concentration in groundwater. However, because aged sorption experiments may be conducted in different soils than lower‐tier degradation and adsorption experiments, it cannot be guaranteed that the higher tier predicts lower concentrations than the lower tier, while lower tiers should be more conservative than higher tiers. To mitigate this problem, the Panel recommends using all available higher‐ and lower‐tier data in the leaching assessment. The Panel further recommends that aged sorption parameters for metabolites be derived only from metabolite‐dosed studies. The formation fraction can be derived from parent‐dosed degradation studies, provided that the parent and metabolite are fitted with the best‐fit model, which is the double first‐order in parallel model in the case of aged sorption.

Abstract Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) developed an opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) models and their use in prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides and aquatic organisms. TKTD models are species‐ and compound‐specific and can be used to predict (sub)lethal effects of pesticides under untested (time‐variable) exposure conditions. Three different types of TKTD models are described, viz., (i) the ‘General Unified Threshold models of Survival’ (GUTS), (ii) those based on the Dynamic Energy Budget theory (DEBtox models), and (iii) models for primary producers. All these TKTD models follow the principle that the processes influencing internal exposure of an organism, (TK), are separated from the processes that lead to damage and effects/mortality (TD). GUTS models can be used to predict survival rate under untested exposure conditions. DEBtox models explore the effects on growth and reproduction of toxicants over time, even over the entire life cycle. TKTD model for primary producers and pesticides have been developed for algae, Lemna and Myriophyllum. For all TKTD model calibration, both toxicity data on standard test species and/or additional species can be used. For validation, substance and species‐specific data sets from independent refined‐exposure experiments are required. Based on the current state of the art (e.g. lack of documented and evaluated examples), the DEBtox modelling approach is currently limited to research applications. However, its great potential for future use in prospective ERA for pesticides is recognised. The GUTS model and the Lemna model are considered ready to be used in risk assessment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) prepared a scientific opinion to provide a comprehensive evaluation of pesticide residues in foods for infants and young children. In its approach to develop this scientific opinion, the EFSA PPR Panel took into account, among the others, (i) the relevant opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food setting a default maximum residue level (MRL) of 0.01 mg/kg for pesticide residues in foods for infants and young children; (ii) the recommendations provided by EFSA Scientific Committee in a guidance on risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age; (iii) the knowledge on organ/system development in infants and young children. For infants below 16 weeks of age, the EFSA PPR Panel concluded that pesticide residues at the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg for food for infants and young children are not likely to result in an unacceptable exposure for active substances for which a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) of 0.0026 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or higher applies. Lower MRLs are recommended for active substances with HBGVs below this value. For infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the established approach for setting HBGVs is considered appropriate. For infants below 16 weeks of age the approach may not be appropriate and the application of the EFSA guidance on risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age is recommended. The contribution of conventional food to the total exposure to pesticide residues is much higher than that from foods intended for infants and young children. Because of the increased intake of conventional food by young children, these have the highest exposure to pesticide residues, whereas infants 3–6 months of age generally have lower exposure. The impact of cumulative exposure to pesticide residues on infants and young children is not different from the general population and the EFSA cumulative risk assessment methodology is also applicable to these age groups. Residue definitions established under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are in general considered appropriate also for foods for infants and young children. However, based on a tier 1 analysis of the hydrolysis potential of pesticides simulating processing, the particular appropriateness of existing residue definitions for monitoring to cover processed food, both intended for infants and young children as well as conventional food, is questionable.

Abstract Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science to support the potential development of a risk assessment scheme of plant protection products for amphibians and reptiles. The coverage of the risk to amphibians and reptiles by current risk assessments for other vertebrate groups was investigated. Available test methods and exposure models were reviewed with regard to their applicability to amphibians and reptiles. Proposals were made for specific protection goals aiming to protect important ecosystem services and taking into consideration the regulatory framework and existing protection goals for other vertebrates. Uncertainties, knowledge gaps and research needs were highlighted.

Abstract In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the ‘recognised standards’ mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case–control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta‐analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure–response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

Abstract In 2013, EFSA published a literature review on epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and human health outcome. As a follow up, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to investigate the plausible involvement of pesticide exposure as a risk factor for Parkinson's disease (PD) and childhood leukaemia (CHL). A systematic literature review on PD and CHL and mode of actions for pesticides was published by EFSA in 2016 and used as background documentation. The Panel used the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) conceptual framework to define the biological plausibility in relation to epidemiological studies by means of identification of specific symptoms of the diseases as AO. The AOP combines multiple information and provides knowledge of biological pathways, highlights species differences and similarities, identifies research needs and supports regulatory decisions. In this context, the AOP approach could help in organising the available experimental knowledge to assess biological plausibility by describing the link between a molecular initiating event (MIE) and the AO through a series of biologically plausible and essential key events (KEs). As the AOP is chemically agnostic, tool chemical compounds were selected to empirically support the response and temporal concordance of the key event relationships (KERs). Three qualitative and one putative AOP were developed by the Panel using the results obtained. The Panel supports the use of the AOP framework to scientifically and transparently explore the biological plausibility of the association between pesticide exposure and human health outcomes, identify data gaps, define a tailored testing strategy and suggests an AOP's informed Integrated Approach for Testing and Assessment (IATA).

Abstract Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science behind the risk assessment of plant protection products for in‐soil organisms. The current risk assessment scheme is reviewed, taking into account new regulatory frameworks and scientific developments. Proposals are made for specific protection goals for in‐soil organisms being key drivers for relevant ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes such as nutrient cycling, soil structure, pest control and biodiversity. Considering the time‐scales and biological processes related to the dispersal of the majority of in‐soil organisms compared to terrestrial non‐target arthropods living above soil, the Panel proposes that in‐soil environmental risk assessments are made at in‐ and off‐field scale considering field boundary levels. A new testing strategy which takes into account the relevant exposure routes for in‐soil organisms and the potential direct and indirect effects is proposed. In order to address species recovery and long‐term impacts of PPPs, the use of population models is also proposed.