Search

The catalytic application of chiral phosphoric acids (CPAs) from 2004 to date represents a true milestone for asymmetric organocatalysis. However, not only the free acids can be conveniently employed in numerous different asymmetric synthetic methodologies, thus being strictly compliant to the concept of "organocatalysis", but also their metal salts. This review focuses on asymmetric reactions in which the catalyst is a chiral alkali or alkaline‐earth metal phosphate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four melanin polymers prepared from different precursors (5,6‐dihydroxyindole, 5,6‐dihydroxyindole 2‐carboxylic acid, 1,8‐dihydroxynaphthalene and dopamine) have been adopted as photocatalysts in the reductive dehalogenation of a series of model α‐halogen carbonyl derivatives. The best performing melanin was that obtained from 5,6‐dihydroxyindole 2‐carboxylic acid, which allowed to dehalogenate efficiently both bromomalonate esters and phenacyl bromide; on the other hand, chloromalonate esters were almost unreactive under the same reaction conditions. Electrochemical and control experiments enabled to elucidate the reaction mechanism, demonstrating the key role of electrons as charge carriers in the observed photocatalytic process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citronella oil obtained from the leaves of Cymbopogon nardus (L.) Rendle, when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that citronella oil from C. nardus is of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals at the use levels in complete feed of 3.5 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 6 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 9.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats and horses, 2.0 mg/kg for cats and 10 mg/kg for dogs. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at concentrations of 18 mg/kg in chickens for fattening, 24 mg/kg in turkeys for fattening, 20 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats for meat production, horses for meat production and rabbits for meat production, and 30 mg/kg for salmonids. The conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. For any other species, the additive is considered of low concern at 2.0 mg/kg complete feed. The use of citronella oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for the consumers and for the environment. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the leaves of C. nardus and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 users of the feed additive consisting of ferric tyrosine chelate (TYFER™) when used as a zootechnical additive for chickens, turkeys and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The European Commission request follows a previous opinion of the FEEDAP Panel. In that opinion, the Panel identified several risks for the users of the additive; it was listed that it posed a risk to users by inhalation, should be considered as an irritant to skin, eyes and mucous membranes, and also that, due to its nickel content, should be considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. In the current application, the applicant proposed a maximum content of nickel (50 mg/kg). No changes in the manufacturing process have been reported by the applicant. In the absence of new data, the FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusion that the additive should be as an irritant to skin, eyes and mucous membranes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 cajuput oil obtained from fresh leaves of Melaleuca cajuputi Maton & Sm. ex R. Powell and Melaleuca leucadendra (L.) L., when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cajuput oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for sows and dogs, 50 mg/kg for horses and ornamental fish, 40 mg/kg for salmon and 5 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations were 18 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 26 mg/kg for laying hens, 23 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 37 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 31 mg/kg for piglets, 78 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 69 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and sheep/goats, 45 mg/kg for dairy cows and 28 mg/kg for rabbits. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 5 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cajuput oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since cajuput oil was recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Patent Blue V as a sensory feed additive for non‐food‐producing animals. The additive is already authorised for use with non‐food‐producing animals. The applicant has not provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude whether the additive remains safe for the target species due to the non‐compliance with the specifications and the lack of adequate data on the potential aneugenicity of the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a dermal and eye irritant nor a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the potential genotoxicity of the additive was not ruled out, the exposure to the additive of the unprotected users should be minimised. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of sodium bisulphate (SBS) as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species (category: technological additive; functional group: preservative), and for all terrestrial animal species other than cats, mink, pets and other non‐food‐producing animals (category: technological additive; functional group: acidity regulator). EFSA has also been asked to assess the new use of the product as an acidity regulator and flavouring compound in all pets and other non‐food‐producing animals except aquatic animals. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all terrestrial animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the proposed new use would not introduce risks not already considered in the previous assessment and therefore the same conclusions on all terrestrial animal species, consumers of products from animals fed the additive and the environment would apply. Regarding user safety, the additive is irritant to the skin, eyes and the respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an acidity regulator and sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed for pet and non‐food‐producing animals (except aquatic animals). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 of ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron(II)‐betaine complex as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on the results of a tolerance study carried out in chickens the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening when used up to the current maximum authorised levels of iron in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories at the respective maximum iron levels in complete feed authorised in the European Union. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the iron(II)‐betaine complex in animal nutrition at the maximum iron levels authorised for the animal species poses no concern to the safety of consumers. The additive is not a skin irritant, but it is an irritant to the eyes. Due to the traces of nickel, the additive is considered to be a respiratory and skin sensitiser. Regarding the safety for the environment, the use of the additive in feed for terrestrial animals, land‐based and sea cages aquaculture is considered safe under the proposed conditions of use. Based on the deposition of iron in edible tissues/organs in chickens for fattening, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is a source of bioavailable iron, comparable to the standard inorganic iron source, and therefore, the additive is efficacious in meeting the birds iron requirements. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species and categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the herbaceous parts of Pelargonium graveolens L'Hér. (geranium rose oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of geranium rose oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of geranium rose oil up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of geranium rose oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk to the environment. Since P. graveolens and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of thaumatin as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) for all animal species. The applicant requested a change in the authorising regulation for the minimum content of nitrogen and protein in the specification of the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) confirms that the use of thaumatin under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. This conclusion can be extended to the newly proposed specification. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. Thaumatin is not irritant to the eyes and the skin. In the absence of data, no conclusion on skin sensitisation could be made. The proposed modification of the specification of the additive is not considered to have an impact on the efficacy of thaumatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 4‐methyl‐5‐vinylthiazole [15.018] belonging to chemical group 29 (thiazoles, thiophene and thiazoline), when used as sensory additive (flavourings) in feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that 4‐methyl‐5‐vinylthiazole [15.018] was safe at the maximum proposed use level of 0.5 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves (milk replacer), dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed are: 0.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goat, horses and cats; 0.3 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows; 0.2 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, rabbits and laying hens; and 0.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and turkeys for fattening. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 0.1 mg/kg complete feed. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of 4‐methyl‐5‐vinylthiazole [15.018] as a flavour in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk to the environment. Since the compound under assessment is used in food as flavouring and its function in feed is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of juniper oil and juniper tincture obtained from the berries of Juniperus communis L., when used as sensory additives for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that juniper oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 5 mg/kg for laying hens, 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and cattle for fattening and 20 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 4 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 7 mg/kg for piglets, 8 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 10 mg/kg for sows, dairy cows, 16 mg/kg for sheep, goats and horses, 6 mg/kg for rabbits, 17 mg/kg for salmonids, 18 mg/kg for dogs and 3 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 3 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that juniper tincture is safe up to the maximum proposed use level in feed of 45 mg/kg complete feed or water for drinking for all animal species. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additives to the highest safe level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as skin and respiratory sensitisers. Since the berries of J. communis and their preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of anise oil and anise tincture obtained from the fruit of Pimpinella anisum L., when used as sensory additives. The use of the anise oil at the proposed use level in complete feed of 1.9 mg/kg for laying hens and 5 mg/kg for horses was considered of low concern. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concern when anise oil is used at the proposed use levels of 1.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and at 1.7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening. The use of anise tincture at the proposed conditions of use was considered of low concern in dogs, cats, horses and laying hens, and of no concern in chickens for fattening. The use of the additives up to the highest level in feed which was considered of low or no concern for target animals was also expected to be of no concern for consumers. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. Due to the high concentration of estragole (≥ 1%), anise oil is classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. When handling anise tincture, exposure of unprotected users to estragole may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of these additives in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk to the environment. Since the fruit of P. anisum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the fruit of Pimpinella anisum L. (anise tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of approximately 1.6%. The product contained on average 0.0414% polyphenols (of which 0.0144% were flavonoids), 0.0009% anisaldehyde, 0.0003% anethole. Estragole (≤ 1.2 mg/kg) was detected in the additive. The estimated maximum content of furocoumarins was 8.2 mg/kg. The use of the anise tincture in feed was not expected to increase the exposure to furocoumarins of those target species that are already fed citrus by‐products to a relevant extent (< 10%). For dogs, cats and ornamental fish not normally exposed to citrus by‐products, no conclusion could be drawn. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the anise tincture was safe at the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 200 mg/kg for horses and 50 mg/kg for poultry, pigs, ruminants, rabbits and salmonids and other fin fish. Anise tincture should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since anise tincture may contain furocoumarins, they may cause phototoxicity. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to estragole may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of the anise tincture as a flavour in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the fruit of P. anisum and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no demonstration of efficacy was necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil, also known as turpentine oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 35 mg/kg for laying hens, piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, rabbits, salmonids, 50 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horses, dogs and ornamental fish, 20 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 25 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 33 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 14 mg/kg for ornamental birds. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 20 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of pine white oil up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of pine white oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Pine white oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 2‐acetylfuran [13.054] and 2‐pentylfuran [13.059] belonging to chemical group 14 (furfuryl and furan derivatives with and without additional side‐chain substituents and heteroatoms), when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed for all animal species. 2‐Acetylfuran [13.054] was tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended use level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that 2‐acetylfuran [13.054] is safe for these species at the proposed use level of 0.5 mg/kg and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For 2‐pentylfuran [13.059], the Panel concluded that it is safe at the proposed maximum use level in feed of 0.5 mg/kg. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of 2‐acetylfuran [13.054] and 2‐pentylfuran [13.059] up to the proposed maximum use level in feed as flavourings. The additives should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of 2‐acetylfuran [13.054] and 2‐pentylfuran [13.059] as flavours in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the compounds under assessment are used in food as flavourings and their function in feed is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of semi‐refined carrageenan as a feed additive for cats and dogs. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that semi‐refined carrageenan was safe for dogs at 6,000 mg/kg final wet feed (with about 20% dry matter). This would correspond to 26,400 mg semi‐refined carrageenan/kg complete feed (with 88% dry matter). In the absence of specific data, the maximum concentration of the additive considered safe for cats was 750 mg semi‐refined carrageenan/kg final wet feed, corresponding to 3,300 mg semi‐refined carrageenan/kg complete feed (with 88% dry matter). In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of carrageenan for the user. The additive under assessment is intended to be used in dogs and cats only. No environmental risk assessment was considered necessary for such use. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of semi‐refined carrageenan as a gelling agent, thickener and stabiliser in feed for cats and dogs at the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gellan gum (GG) was chemically modified with methacrylic moieties to produce a photocrosslinkable biomaterial ink, hereinafter called methacrylated GG (GGMA), with improved physico-chemical properties, mechanical behavior and stability under physiological conditions. Afterwards, GGMA was functionalized by incorporating two different bioactive compounds, a naturally derived eumelanin extracted from the black soldier fly (BSF-Eumel), or hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (HAp), synthesized by the sol–gel method. Different ink formulations based on GGMA (2 and 4% (w/v)), BSF-Eumel, at a selected concentration (0.3125 mg/mL), or HAp (10 and 30% wHAp/wGGMA) were developed and processed by three-dimensional (3D) printing. All the functionalized GGMA-based ink formulations allowed obtaining 3D-printed GGMA-based scaffolds with a well-organized structure. For both bioactive signals, the scaffolds with the highest GGMA concentration (4% (w/v)) and the highest percentage of infill (45%) showed the best performances in terms of morphological and mechanical properties. Indeed, these scaffolds showed a good structural integrity over 28 days. Given the presence of negatively charged groups along the eumelanin backbone, scaffolds consisting of GGMA/BSF-Eumel demonstrated a higher stability. From a mechanical point of view, GGMA/BSF-Eumel scaffolds exhibited values of storage modulus similar to those of GGMA ones, while the inclusion of HAp at 30% (wHAp/wGGMA) led to a storage modulus of 32.5 kPa, 3.5-fold greater than neat GGMA. In vitro studies proved the capability of the bioactivated 3D-printed scaffolds to support 7F2 osteoblast cell growth and differentiation. BSF-Eumel and HAp triggered a different time-dependent physiological response in the osteoblasts. Specifically, while the ink with BSF-Eumel acted as a stimulus towards cell proliferation, reaching the highest value at 14 days, a higher expression of alkaline phosphatase activity was detected for scaffolds consisting of GGMA and HAp. The overall findings demonstrated the possible use of these biomaterial inks for 3D-printed bone tissue-engineered scaffolds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the roots of Eleutherococcus senticosus (Rupr. & Maxim.) Maxim. (taiga root tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed for dogs, cats and horses. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for dogs, cats and horses at the maximum proposed use level of 460.7, 489.5 and 140.7 mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The additive was considered safe for consumers when used at the proposed conditions of use in horses for meat production. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the taiga root tincture as a flavour in feed for horses was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the root of E. senticosus has flavouring properties and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for the tincture under assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]