Search

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of Cylactin® as zootechnical additive. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415, and three additive formulations currently authorised: Cylactin® LBC G35, Cylactin® LBC ME10 and Cylactin® LBC ME20 plus. The additive is currently authorised in the EU for use in poultry (chickens and minor poultry species for fattening, chickens and minor species reared for laying), calves and kids for rearing and for fattening, sows, suckling and weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. The applicant is now seeking the renewal of its authorisation and the extension of use for chickens and minor poultry species reared for breeding, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, ornamental birds, lambs for rearing and for fattening, minor or other ruminants' species for rearing and fattening, minor suckling and weaned Suidae species, pigs and minor Suidae species for fattening, rearing or reproduction. In addition, the applicant is seeking authorisation for use in water for drinking for all above‐mentioned target species and categories. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised/new proposed conditions of use. The Cylactin® LBC ME10 and LBC ME20 plus are not skin and eye irritants, but no conclusion could be drawn on the potential of Cylactin® LBC G35 to be skin and eye irritant. Moreover, no conclusions could be drawn on the additive skin sensitisation potential. The additive is considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The efficacy for the new target species/categories as well its use in water was extrapolated from the previous efficacy studies.

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 endo‐β‐1,4‐xylanase (VTR‐xylanase) as a zootechnical feed additive for all avian species, piglets (suckling and weaned) and minor growing porcine species. VTR‐xylanase is available in a powder and a liquid form and is produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.371). The genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR xylanase (powder/liquid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.371 is safe for all avian species, piglets and minor growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid and powder formulations of VTR‐xylanase are non‐irritant to eyes but should be considered skin sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the final formulations of the additive to be irritant to skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all laying birds and piglets (suckling and weaned) from all Suidae at 2,000 U/kg and in all other avian species/categories at 1,000 U/kg feed.

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 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol (produced by Pseudonocardia autotrophica DSM 32858) for all pigs, all poultry for fattening and ornamental birds and other poultry species. The production strain P. autotrophica DSM 32858 is not genetically modified however, uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its viable cells in the final product. Due to the lack of adequate safety data and uncertainty on the presence of nano particles, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumer. The additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes and it is not a skin sensitiser. Considering the low dusting potential of the additive, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. However, the FEEDAP Panel considered that uncertainties remain on genotoxicity and on the possible presence of viable cells of P. autotrophica DSM 32858 in the final product which might have an impact on the safety for the users. The use of the feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious under the proposed 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 Streptococcus salivarius DSM 13084/ATCC BAA 1024 as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulators) in feed for dogs and cats. The additive is intended for use at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 1011 CFU/l or kg liquid feed for dogs and cats. Due to the lack of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species. The additive was considered a respiratory sensitiser, but not irritant to skin. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to be an eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. No environmental risk assessment is necessary for the use of the additive in feeds for pets. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in feeds for dogs and cats at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) contains 6‐phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae, it is currently authorised for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 22594 for A. oryzae DSM 33699. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its recombinant DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final forms of the additive. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) was considered safe for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at the recommended inclusion levels of 500–4,000 FYT/kg complete feed. The use of RONOZYME® Hiphos GT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699 raised no concerns for consumers. In the absence of data on the final formulations, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to eyes or skin, or a skin sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive was considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33699 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at 500 FYT/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase (VTR‐phytase) as zootechnical feed additive for all pigs and all avian species. The additive VTR‐phytase consists of 6‐phytase and it is available in solid and liquid forms. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) was produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.370). The genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.370 is safe for all Suidae and all avian species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid VTR phytase and powder VTR phytase are non‐irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered skin and respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens at 1,000 U phytase/kg complete feed. The conclusion can be extrapolated to other birds for egg production or breeding. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of all pigs or growing poultry species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of the safety and efficacy of carmine (sensory additive, functional group: colourants – substances that add or restore colour in feeds) for cats and dogs. The additive consists of aluminium lakes of carminic acid (carmines), which are complexes of aluminium and carminic acid. Carminic acid, produced from the female insect Dactylopius coccus Costa, is the colouring principle and is present in the final additive at 50%. The additive does not pose a risk concerning genotoxicity and is considered safe for dogs and cats at 264 and 220 mg Carmine/kg feed, respectively (which correspond to 132 and 110 mg carminic acid/kg feed, respectively). Due to the nature of the additive, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that allergic reactions may occur in the target species following the ingestion of feeds containing the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the exposure of users by inhalation is very likely, and that carmine is a respiratory and skin sensitiser; however, due to the lack of data, a conclusion cannot be reached on the potential skin and eye irritation of the additive. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feeds for dogs and cats under the proposed 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 Solanum glaucophyllum leaf extract (SGE) as a nutritional additive for dairy cows and other dairy ruminants. However, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered the glycosides of 1,25‐dihydroxycholecalciferol (1,25[OH]2D3) as the active substance and the bolus containing SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]2D3 as the preparation of the additive. The product is intended to be administered to dairy ruminants during the pre‐parturient (period from 9 days before calving to immediately before calving). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the administration of one bolus, the preparation of the additive as applied in the animal studies evaluated, containing 500 μg of SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]2D3 during the pre‐parturient period is safe for cows. Owing to the lack of data, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for of a subsequent administration of a second bolus or on the safety of another SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]2D3 preparation for use in dairy ruminants other than cows (Bos taurus). The Panel considered that, under the specified conditions of use, the product is safe for the consumer and the environment. The bolus, a preparation containing SGE, as a source of the active substance, is not irritating to skin and eyes and it is not a sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is unlikely. The Panel concluded that the administration of the bolus, the preparation of the additive as applied in the animal studies evaluated, containing 500 μg of SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]2D3 in a period from 9 days before calving to immediately before calving has the potential to prevent hypocalcaemia in dairy cows. Owing to the lack of data with another preparation, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy in other dairy ruminants.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products of Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii DSM 33574 (Xylamax) as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay. The production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the Panel concluded that Xylamax is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay. Considering the production strain and the results obtained in the genotoxicity studies, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers. The Panel also concluded that Xylamax is not irritant to the skin but should be considered a potential eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 10,000 XU/kg feed in chickens for fattening. This conclusion was extended/extrapolated to chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of guar gum as a feed additive for all animal species. Owing the absence of information, the genotoxic potential of the additive could not be fully assessed. From the results of tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that guar gum is safe for salmonids at a maximum concentration of 3,000 mg/kg complete feed. Guar gum is safe up to ~ 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbits, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,150 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animals, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the user. Guar gum is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener, and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the additive as an emulsifier.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of acacia gum (gum Arabic) as a feed additive for all animal species. Acacia gum is safe up to approximately 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbit, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,250 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves and salmonids. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animal, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. No exposure of the consumer to the additive or its metabolites is expected. Therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers. Acacia gum is a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion can be reached on the irritating potential to the skin or eyes. The use of acacia gum in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of acacia gum.

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

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

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 zearalenone hydrolase (ZenA) produced by Escherichia coli DSM 32731 when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animals. The production strain E. coli DSM 32731 is genetically modified and harbours a kanamycin resistance gene. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product, but uncertainty remains on the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product. The ZenA contained in the additive is safe for all terrestrial animal species up to the maximum use levels of (in U/kg complete feed): 100 U/kg in chickens for fattening; 150 U/kg in laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits; 200 U/kg in pigs; 250 U/kg in dairy cows; 400 U/kg in veal calf (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses and cats; and 450 U/kg in dogs. Based on the ADME and toxicological data, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the ZenA contained in the additive in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers. The endotoxin content in the additive poses a risk by inhalation for users handling the additive. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. The ZenA contained in the additive and the resulting breakdown products of its enzymatic activity do not represent a safety concern for the environment. The production strain harbours an antimicrobial resistance gene and uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its recombinant DNA in the final product; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on safety of the additive for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bovaer® 10 as a zootechnical additive for ruminants for milk production and reproduction. Systemic exposure or site of contact toxicity for the active substance 3‐nitrooxypropanol (3‐NOP), for which genotoxicity has not been fully clarified, in the target species, is unlikely based on ADME data available. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Bovaer® 10 was safe for dairy cows at the maximum recommended level. However, as a margin of safety could not be established, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the consumer was exposed to 3‐nitrooxypropionic acid (NOPA), which is one of the 3‐NOP metabolites. NOPA was not genotoxic based on the studies provided. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of Bovaer® 10 in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed was of no concern for consumer safety and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the active substance 3‐NOP may be harmful if inhaled. It is irritant (but not corrosive) to skin, irritant to the eyes but it is not a skin sensitiser. As the genotoxicity of 3‐NOP is not completely elucidated, the exposure through inhalation of the additive may represent an additional risk for the user. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious in dairy cows to reduce enteric methane production under the proposed conditions of use. This conclusion was extrapolated to all other ruminants for milk production and reproduction.

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 feed additive consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella Gallinarum B/00111 (PCM F/00069, PCM F/00070, PCM F/00071 and PCM F/00097, trade name: Bafasal®) when used as a zootechnical additive in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed for all avian species. The effects sought are the reduction of the Salmonella spp. carriage in chickens for fattening, the improvement of their performance, or both. The host strain harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. No viable cells or DNA from the host organism were found in the additive. The four phages proved to be strictly lytic and to have a machinery allowing to package a unit‐length of the viral genome. The manufacturing process excludes the presence of remnants from the propagation process in the final additive. Consequently, no concerns are expected from the nature and manufacture of the product. Considering this and the results of the tolerance study with chickens for fattening, the Panel concluded that Bafasal® is safe for all avian species. Considering the nature and manufacturing process of the additive, Bafasal® is not expected to pose a risk for consumers. The results of the subchronic oral toxicity study and genotoxicity studies provided support this conclusion. Exposure of users via inhalation is expected to be low, but Bafasal® should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions were drawn on the irritancy of Bafasal® to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential due to lack of data. Considering the nature and manufacturing process of the additive, Bafasal® is safe for the environment. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bafasal® for any avian species due to insufficient data.

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

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 feed additive Vitamin B2/Riboflavin produced by Eremothecium ashbyi CCTCCM 2019833 for all animal species and categories. The additive contains a minimum content of riboflavin of 5%. The production strain has been characterised and data showed that viable cells are not present in the final additive. The additive is not a skin or eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The lack of data on the toxicological profile of the additive, including its genotoxic potential, did not allow the Panel to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers and users. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive poses no concerns for the environment. The additive under assessment is effective in covering the animals’ requirements for vitamin B2 when administered via feed.

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 Axtra® XAP 104 TPT as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancers) for poultry species. The additive contains three enzyme activities (endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase, protease and alpha‐amylase) produced by three different genetically modified strains. Viable cells and recombinant DNA of the strains producing the protease and amylase were not detected in the final product. Owing to the insufficient data, uncertainty remained on the presence in the additive of viable cells of the strain producing the xylanase. The results obtained in the genotoxicity and subchronic oral toxicity studies performed with the three fermentation products did not indicate safety concerns resulting from the fermentation products used in the formulation/manufacturing. However, uncertainties remain on the suitability of the test item used in the studies conducted with the xylanase; therefore, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the toxicological potential of AXTRA® XAP 104 TPT. Consequently, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers and users. Owing to the uncertainty on the presence of viable cells of one of the production strains in the additive, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that AXTRA® XAP 104 TPT is efficacious in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species up to the point of lay at the level of 2,000 U xylanase, 200 U amylase and 4,000 U protease per kg feed. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for laying hens.

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 l‐histidine monohydrochloride (HCl) monohydrate produced by fermentation using Escherichia coli NITE SD 00268 in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for salmonids when used as a nutritional additive. In addition, the applicant requested the extension of use of the additive for other fin fish. The applicant has provided evidence that the composition of the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The production strain has been modified by conventional mutagenesis and it does not raise safety concerns. The use of l‐histidine HCl monohydrate produced by fermentation using E. coli NITE SD 00268 is safe for salmonids and other fin fish when used as a nutritional additive to supplement the diet in appropriate amounts to cover the nutritional requirements, depending on the species, the physiological state of the animal, the performance level, the environmental conditions, the background amino acid composition of the unsupplemented diet and the status of some essential trace elements such as copper and zinc. The FEEDAP Panel considers the maximum total concentration of 1.7% histidine in feed for salmonids proposed by the applicant as safe. For other fin fish species, the level of 1.7% appears to cause adverse effects. Therefore, it is not possible to define a maximum concentration of histidine in fish other than salmonids as it depends on histidine nutritional requirements in the different fish species. The use of the authorised additive in salmonids production does not pose a risk for consumers, and the proposed maximum total concentration of 1.7% histidine in feed is considered safe for the consumer. l‐Histidine HCl monohydrate produced using E. coli NITE SD 00268 supplemented at levels appropriate to cover the nutritional requirements of fish other than salmonids is considered safe for the consumer. The additive under assessment is not a skin irritant. In the absence of data, it is not possible to conclude on the potential of the additive to be toxic by inhalation, irritant to eyes or a skin sensitiser. The amino acid l‐histidine is a natural component of plants and animals. The use of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition does not represent a risk to the environment. The additive is considered an efficacious source of the amino acid l‐histidine for fish 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 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 This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing aids (CEP Panel) is on the safety assessment of trimellitic acid, tris(2‐ethylhexyl) ester, intended to be used as a plasticiser in the manufacture of soft poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) materials and articles, such as wrap films (single uses) and tubing (repeated uses) at up to approximately 10% and 40%, respectively. Under the tested conditions, the substance migrated up to 165 μg/kg food from wrap films and was not detected in food simulant in contact with tubing. Based on the three reported in vitro genotoxicity studies, the Panel concluded that the substance does not raise concern for genotoxicity. The lowest no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), derived from a 90‐day oral toxicity study, was 225 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Based on data on toxicokinetic and metabolism, the substance does not give rise to concern for accumulation in humans. The substance does not cause developmental effects as induced by phthalic acid, bis(2‐ethylhexyl) ester (DEHP). Assuming that impurities migrate pro‐rata to a migration of the substance up to 5 mg/kg food, their estimated migration does not raise a safety concern. The Panel concluded that the substance does not raise safety concern for the consumer when used in the manufacture of soft PVC under the conditions requested by the applicant for (i) single use wrap films in contact with food for which simulants A, B and D1 are assigned, as well as (ii) tubing for repeated contacts with food for which simulants A and B are assigned. Overall, the use of the substance does not raise a safety concern if its migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. Due to the additional contribution from other sources of exposures, the application of an allocation factor should be considered.

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 l‐histidine monohydrochloride (HCl) monohydrate produced by fermentation using Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80172 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is genetically modified. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the final product. l‐Histidine HCl monohydrate manufactured by fermentation using C. glutamicum KCCM 80172 does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification. The use of l‐histidine HCl monohydrate produced by fermentation using C. glutamicum KCCM 80172 is safe for the target species when used as a nutritional additive to supplement the diet in appropriate amounts to cover the requirements, depending on the species, the physiological state of the animal, the performance level, the environmental conditions, the background amino acid composition of the unsupplemented diet and the status of some essential trace elements such as copper and zinc. l‐Histidine HCl monohydrate produced using C. glutamicum KCCM 80172 supplemented at levels appropriate for the requirements of the target species is considered safe for the consumer. l‐Histidine HCl monohydrate produced using C. glutamicum KCCM 80172 is not irritant to skin, is a mildly irritant to eyes, and it is not a skin sensitiser. The additive does not pose a risk to users by inhalation. The use of l‐histidine HCl monohydrate produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80172 in animal nutrition is not expected to represent a risk to the environment. l‐Histidine HCl monohydrate is considered an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐histidine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐histidine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP Panel) is a safety assessment of the additive titanium dioxide surface treated with fluoride‐modified alumina, a defined mixture of particles of which ■■■■■% in number have a diameter in the range of 1–100 nm. It is intended to be used as filler and colourant up to 25% w/w in potentially all polymer types. Materials and articles containing the additive are intended to be in contact with all food types for any time and temperature conditions. The data provided demonstrate that the additive particles stay embedded even in swollen polar polymers such as polyamide, and do not migrate. Moreover, the additive particles resisted release by abrasion and did not transfer into a simulant for solid/dry foods. Thus, the additive particles do not give rise to exposure via food and to toxicological concern. Migration of solubilised ionic fluoride and aluminium occurs from the surface of the additive particles and particularly from swollen plastic. The Panel concluded that the substance does not raise safety concern for the consumer if used as an additive up to 25% w/w in polymers in contact with all food types for any time and temperature conditions. However, uses in polar polymers swelling in contact with foodstuffs simulated by 3% acetic acid should be limited to conditions simulated by contact up to 4 h at 100°C. This is due to the fact that when used at 25%, and contact was followed by 10 days at 60°C, the migration of aluminium and fluoride largely exceeded the specific migration limit (SML) of 1 and 0.15 mg/kg food, respectively. The Panel emphasises that the existing SMLs for aluminium and fluoride should not be exceeded in any case.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of montmorillonite clay modified with hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HDTA) when used as an additive at up to ■■■■■ in polylactic acid (PLA) bottles intended for contact with water for long‐term storage at ambient temperature or below. The modified clay, which 90% w/w of the particles have a dimension of 33.1 μm or less and the average size is 9 μm, has a layered structure with layers of a thickness below 100 nm. When incorporated in PLA, nanosized layers can be dispersed in the matrix, but are not expected to migrate. Thermal degradation is not expected at the maximum manufacturing temperature. No loss of integrity of the PLA surface due to interaction with bottled water was observed. The overall migration was very low. No migration of HDTA was detected at the limit of detection ■■■■■. Migration of aluminium was below or at the limit of detection ■■■■■, which would conservatively correspond to approximately ■■■■■. Comparative analysis of bottled water with and without the modified clay did not reveal additional peaks corresponding to impurities identified in the modifier and/or in the modified clay. Moreover, ■■■■■, and the modifier HDTA have been evaluated and authorised. Therefore, the CEP Panel concluded that the substance montmorillonite clay modified with HDTA bromide is not of safety concern for the consumer if the substance is used as an additive at up to ■■■■■ in PLA plastic bottles and other containers intended for long‐term storage of water at ambient temperature or below, as requested by the applicant.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP Panel) assessed the safety of poly((R)‐3‐hydroxybutyrate‐co‐(R)‐3‐hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH), CAS No 147398‐31‐0 and food contact material (FCM) substance No 1059. This biodegradable copolymer is produced by fermentation of palm oil using a genetically modified microorganism (Cupriavidus necator). Overall migration was up to 5.4 mg/kg. Oligomers are hydroxyl‐terminated or with crotyl‐ and hexenyl end‐groups from dehydration of hydroxyl end‐groups. In the absence of calibration standards, the total oligomer migration was set at the overall migration values. Other degradation products are crotonic acid and (E)‐2‐hexenoic acid. Crotonic acid is authorised for use in FCMs with a specific migration limit (SML) of 0.05 mg/kg food. For (E)‐2‐hexenoic acid, no indication for genotoxicity was identified by the EFSA CEF Panel in its group evaluation of flavouring substances in FGE.05Rev2 (EFSA CEF Panel, ). The other migrating substances detected, ■■■■■, are from the authorised substance ‘palm oil and/or palm fatty acid distillate’ (FCM substance No 9) used as a carbon source for the fermentation and do not give rise to safety concern. A PHBH oligomer mixture was synthesized to simulate that migrating. It did not give rise to concern for genotoxicity. From the repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats, the Panel identified the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose tested in males, 1,364 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel concluded that the potential for bioaccumulation of oligomers is low. Overall, the CEP Panel concluded that the substance PHBH is not of safety concern for the consumer if it is used alone or blended with other polymers in contact with all kinds of food during more than 6 months at room temperature or below, including hot‐fill or a short heating up phase. The specific migration of all oligomers

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of polyacrylic acid, sodium salt, cross‐linked, FCM substance No 1015, which is intended to be used as a liquid absorber in the packaging of fresh or frozen foods such as meat, poultry and seafood as well as fresh fruits and vegetables. Specific migration tests were not performed due to the high absorption of liquids by the substance. The Panel noted that if polyacrylic acid, sodium salt, cross‐linked is used not in direct contact with food and placed in a pad under conditions where its absorption capacity is not exceeded, then no migration is to be expected and therefore no exposure from the consumption of the packed food is expected. The Panel also considered that the non‐cross‐linked polymer and the cross‐linkers do not raise a concern for genotoxicity. The CEP Panel concluded that the use of this polyacrylic acid, sodium salt, cross‐linked, does not raise a safety concern when used in absorbent pads in the packaging of fresh or frozen foods. The absorbent pads must be used only under conditions in which the absorption capacity of the active substance is not exceeded and direct contact with food is excluded.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP Panel) assessed the safety of the additive Ln 1,4‐benzene dicarboxylic acid (with Ln = La, Eu, Gd, Tb) for use in food contact materials. It is a family of mixtures combining the four lanthanides lanthanum (La), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd) and/or terbium (Tb) in different proportions as their 1,4‐benzene dicarboxylate complexes, used as a taggant in plastics for authentication and traceability purposes. The powdered additive, not in nano form, is intended to be used at up to 100 mg/kg in polyethylene, polypropylene and polybutene. Materials and articles made of these plastics are intended for contact with all foods types at up to 4 h/100°C or for long‐term storage at ambient temperature. In tests with food simulants, migration of each Ln was below 5 μg/kg. The Panel considered that irrespective of the composition of the lanthanides, these would dissociate completely from the terephthalic acid salt under aqueous conditions. Evaluation of the genotoxicity studies provided on the individual complexes (La, Eu, Gd and Tb) and on their mixture, taken together with data available in the scientific literature, allows ruling out concern for genotoxicity. Consequently, the CEP Panel concluded that the substance Ln 1,4‐benzene dicarboxylic acid (with Ln = La, Eu, Gd, Tb) does not raise a safety concern for the consumer under the proposed conditions of use and if the migration of the sum of the four lanthanides in ionic form does not exceed 50 μg/kg food.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the active substances carboxymethylcellulose, acetylated distarch phosphate (FCM substance No 1071), bentonite, boric acid and aluminium sulfate (FCM substance No 1072). The mixture is intended to be used as a liquid absorber in the packaging of perishable foods to extend their shelf‐life. All substances have been evaluated and approved for use as additives in plastic food contact materials and/or as food additives. Migration of boron into foods was up to 0.7 mg/kg food. Migration of aluminium was not detected (limit of detection (LOD) of 0.001 mg/kg). The CEF Panel concludes that the substances carboxymethylcellulose, acetylated distarch phosphate, bentonite, boric acid and aluminium sulfate are not of safety concern for the consumer when used as active components in moisture and liquid absorbers. The absorbent pads must be used under conditions in which direct contact between the active mixture and the food is avoided and the fluid absorption capacity of the absorber is not exceeded.

Abstract The substance isobutane is intended to be used as a foaming agent at max 4.5% to produce expanded polystyrene (EPS) to be used for packaging foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and cheese, at room temperature or lower. Isobutane is approved in Europe as a food additive (E 943b) to be used quantum satis as a gas propellant only in vegetable oil pan spray (for professional use only) and water‐based emulsion spray according to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The purity requirements for the use of isobutane as a food additive are described in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The substance is a gas at room temperature. It is a saturated hydrocarbon, obtained with a high level of purity, and is not expected to react under the processing conditions used to make foamed polystyrene materials and articles. Data on migration of isobutane from trays at 20°C for 10 days ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/kg food. Considering the intended applications, estimated exposure is extremely low based on migration data. In the absence of genotoxicity alerts and given the very low toxicity following repeated exposure with no observed adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of several thousands of mg/m3 by inhalation, it was considered that the use of isobutane as a foaming agent, at the expected exposure from food, does not raise a safety concern.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) deals with the safety assessment of selenium nanoparticles, FCM substance No 1070, which is intended to be used as an antioxidant. Selenium nanoparticles are incorporated into the adhesive middle layer of multilayer laminates with an outside polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer and an inner polyolefin (food contact) layer. The final materials are intended to be used for contact with all food types that are susceptible to oxidation. The specific migration of total selenium was tested using multilayer pouches containing selenium nanoparticles at 0.002 mg/dm2 and filled with 3% acetic acid and 20%, 50% or 95% ethanol for 10 days at 60°C. In all tests, migration of selenium was not detectable. Taking into account current knowledge on the diffusional properties of nanoparticles in polymers, the CEF Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the consumer if selenium nanoparticles are used in multilayer films and separated from the food by a polyolefin food contact layer for any type of food and under any food contact conditions.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of [3‐(2,3‐epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxy silane as a component for sizing glass fibres used for manufacturing glass‐fibre‐reinforced plastics. The substance is typically applied at up to around 0.2% related to the final plastic. The resulting food contact materials are intended for various scenarios of use, i.e. long‐term contact at ambient temperature (e.g. storage tanks) or short‐term contact at elevated temperatures (e.g. kitchen utensils). In extracts of treated fibres, neither the substance was detectable at 10 μg/kg fibre nor its hydrolysis product and oligomers at 60 μg/kg fibre. Based on the detection limits, modelling for the plastics and scenarios of intended use resulted in maximum migrations of 0.05 μg/kg food for the substance and 0.15 μg/kg food for the sum of the reaction products. The Panel concludes that the substance has a genotoxic potential. This may also apply to some of its reaction products which contain the epoxy function. However, due to the very low exposure, if any, [3‐(2,3‐epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxy silane does not raise safety concern if used as a component of sizing agents to treat glass fibres imbedded into low diffusivity plastics (polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, polybutylene terephthalate, thermoset polyesters and epoxy bisphenol vinylester) in contact with all foodstuffs. In addition, the residues in the treated glass fibres must not be detectable at 10 μg/kg for the substance and 60 μg/kg for each of the reaction products (hydrolysed monomers and epoxy‐containing cyclic dimer, trimer and tetramer).

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of dimethyl carbonate used as monomer for making a polycarbonate prepolymer with 1,6‐hexanediol and then reacted with 4,4′‐methylenediphenyldiisocyanate (MDI) and diols, such as polypropylene glycol and 1,4‐butanediol, to form a thermoplastic polyurethane containing 29% of the polycarbonate prepolymer. This polymer is intended for repeated use articles with short‐term contact (≤ 30 min) at room temperature for types of food, simulated by 10% ethanol and 3% acetic acid. In the third migration test performed at 40°C during 30 min, overall migration was below 2 mg/dm2. Complete migration of the residual dimethyl carbonate would have amounted to less than 1.5 μg/kg food. The migration of two cyclic hexanediol carbonate oligomers was below 50 μg/kg food when determined by the third migration test; that of all others was below 1 μg/kg food. Three in vitro genotoxicity studies performed in accordance with OECD Guidelines and covering the three endpoints gene mutation, structural and numerical aberrations were provided and were considered negative by the CEF Panel. The oligomers detected by the migration tests are formed from dimethyl carbonate and 1,6‐hexanediol (FCM ref No 1067) do not give rise to concern for genotoxicity. The CEF Panel concluded that the use of dimethyl carbonate does not raise safety concern in the application described above. It is aware that dimethyl carbonate may be used for other polycarbonates and/or under other conditions. These are likely to result in different migrates which need to be evaluated by the business operators. In such cases, the migration of dimethyl carbonate and the total polycarbonate oligomers below 1,000 Da is of no safety concern, if each of them does not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of 1,2,3,4‐tetrahydronaphthalene‐2,6‐dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester (TDCM) for use as a co‐monomer to manufacture polyester layers. The polyester layer is not intended to be in direct contact with food. The finished multilayer articles are intended for packaging aqueous, acidic and low alcoholic foodstuffs. Contact conditions include sterilisation followed by long‐term storage at room temperature. No thermal degradation of TDCM is expected during the manufacture of the middle polyester layer and of the multilayer articles. Total mass transfer of the substance from a polyester monolayer was calculated to be up to 0.032 mg/kg food. Based on three in vitro genotoxicity tests, the CEF Panel considered that the substance does not raise concern for genotoxicity. When tested behind a polypropylene layer, migrating TDCM‐related oligomers, their oxidation products and other related reaction products were identified. The major components were TDCM dimers. When tested behind a cyclo‐olefin polymer layer, none of the TDCM‐related substances were found to migrate. Based on the lack of genotoxicity of the co‐monomer, the ester nature of the oligomers and on (quantitative) structure–activity relationship ((Q)SAR) analysis, the CEF Panel considered that there is no indication of genotoxicity for the oligomers, their oxidation products and other TDCM‐related reaction products. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for the consumer if used as a co‐monomer for the manufacture of a polyester layer intended to be used as an inner (non‐food contact) layer of a multilayer material for contact with foods simulated by simulants A, B, C, D1 (as set in Regulation (EU) 10/2011). The migration of the sum of the substance and the dimers (cyclic and open chain) should not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of the substance phosphorous acid, mixed 2,4‐bis(1,1‐dimethylpropyl)phenyl and 4‐(1,1‐dimethylpropyl)phenyl triesters. The substance was evaluated by the CEF Panel in 2011 and 2,4‐di‐tert‐amylphenol, an impurity and hydrolysis product was re‐evaluated by the CEF Panel in 2015. In this application, the applicant requested an increase of the specific migration limit of the substance, currently established at 5 mg/kg food, to 10 mg/kg food, and provided new toxicological studies. Findings from three new in vitro mutagenicity assays on the oxidation products support the conclusion from 2011 that the substance and its oxidation products are not genotoxic. A new toxicokinetic study on the substance supports the consideration from the evaluation in 2011 that the substance does not raise concern for accumulation. The outcome of a new delayed neurotoxicity study on a structurally related substance, phosphorous acid, tris (2,4‐di‐tert‐butylphenyl) ester, which was considered not to cause neurotoxicity in hens, strengthens the conclusion of the Panel in 2011 that the substance does not represent a concern for neurotoxicity. From a new two‐generation reproduction toxicity study and a prenatal developmental toxicity study on the substance, a new subchronic toxicity study on its oxidation products that completes the one submitted in 2011 on the substance itself, and a 2‐year oral toxicity study on the structurally related substance, the lowest NOAEL was 58–147 mg/kg bw per day (from the 2‐year oral toxicity study). Compared to the requested increase of the migration limit, this gives an acceptable margin of safety of 348. Therefore, the CEF Panel concluded that an increase of the specific migration limit of the substance from 5 to 10 mg/kg food is not a safety concern for the consumer.

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of the mixture of methyl‐branched and linear C14–C18 alkanamides, derived from fatty acids, for use in food contact materials as a slip or release agent at up to 1% w/w in polyolefins. The final materials are intended for contact with foodstuffs other than fatty foods for long‐term storage at room temperature including short heating. No thermal degradation of the substance is expected under manufacturing process conditions of polyolefins. Specific migration from low‐density polyethylene (LDPE) made with 0.37% of the substance into 3% acetic acid and 10% ethanol was up to 0.68 mg/kg. Based on negative results in a bacterial mutation test and in an in vivo micronucleus test, there was no evidence of a genotoxic potential of the substance. Impurities were determined and the main ones were tested in a bacterial mutation test giving negative results. Along with the negative results from the in vivo micronucleus test on the substance containing the impurities, there was no evidence of a genotoxic potential of the impurities. Based on a 28‐day study on the substance, the Panel noted that there is sufficient margin of safety between the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the maximum exposure of consumers that could occur at a migration level of 5 mg/kg food, to cover uncertainties about toxic effects due to potential accumulation of slowly hydrolysed branched amide species of the substance during chronic exposure. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for consumers if it is used in the manufacture of polyolefin articles intended for contact with all foodstuffs other than fatty foods and the migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. The 5 mg/kg food migration should not apply to n‐stearamide.

Abstract This scientific opinion of EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the risk assessment of the additive tungsten oxide, CAS No 39318‐18‐8 and FCM No 1064, for use in food contact materials as a reheat agent in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) at a maximum use level of 75 ppm (75 mg/kg PET). The substance is a mixture of tungsten oxides with tungsten at different oxidative levels. The average oxidation level of tungsten in the oxides is 2.86 corresponding to 19.93% oxygen content. Detailed information on impurities is provided as confidential. Specific migration from PET plaques with the substance at 150 mg/kg (double the maximum intended use level of 75 mg/kg) was determined into 95% ethanol, as a worst‐case simulant for PET due to its swelling effect. Under these test conditions, the specific migration, measured as tungsten using ICP‐MS, was at the level of 1 μg/kg. The Panel considered that due to the insolubility of the substance, this low migration will be typical for any foreseeable use as a reheat additive in PET. Two in vitro genotoxicity studies, a bacterial gene mutation test and an in vitro micronucleus assay, performed in accordance with the OECD Guidelines and in compliance with GLP, were provided by the applicant for the substance tungsten oxide and were considered negative by the CEF Panel. According to a scientific opinion on strategy for genotoxicity testing (EFSA, ), the three genotoxic endpoints, gene mutation, chromosomal and numerical aberrations, are covered by these two tests. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance tungsten oxide is not of safety concern for the consumer if the additive is used as a reheat agent in PET. For other technical functions or for use in other polymers, the migration should not exceed 50 μg/kg (expressed as tungsten).

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) deals with the safety re‐assessment of (butadiene, styrene, methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate) copolymer cross‐linked with divinylbenzene or 1,3‐butanediol dimethacrylate for use at up to 40% w/w in blends of styrene acrylonitrile copolymer (SAN)/poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). Finished articles are intended for repeated contact at room temperature or below with aqueous, acidic and/or low alcoholic foodstuffs for less than 1 day and with dry foodstuffs for more than 1 day. The substance has a low molecular weight fraction (LMWF) below 1,000 Da up to 3.3%. It starts to thermally degrade at ca 230°C, below the maximum temperature of processing finished articles, 250°C. Among the substances released from the heated polymeric additive, four were detected to be released from the finished food contact material (FCM). Migration of oligomers and reaction products into 3% acetic acid and 20% ethanol from a SAN/PMMA material was found to decrease with repeated uses. After the third contact, cyclo‐octatetraene, toluene and a hexanedioic acid related substance were detected by GC–MS analysis of the simulant samples, at approximately 5 μg/kg food. From analysis with headspace‐GC–MS of heated plastic samples with and without the substance, four volatiles were (semi)quantified at ca 1 μg/6 dm2 or less. Considering that the substance is a polymeric additive without structural alert for genotoxicity, manufactured using authorised monomers and with limited potential migration of the LMWF, no toxicological data were requested. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for the consumer if it is used at up to 40% w/w in blends of SAN/PMMA repeat‐use articles intended for contact at room temperature with aqueous, acidic and/or low alcoholic foodstuffs for less than 1 day and with dry foodstuffs without a time limit.