Search

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 re‐evaluation of the authorisation of Sepiolitic clay as a feed additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that Sepiolitic clay is unlikely to be absorbed. Harmful amounts of residues of any chemical component in edible tissues/products, as a consequence of the use of Sepiolitic clay as a feed additive, are not expected. Sepiolitic clay is not genotoxic and does not induce any toxicity effects following oral administration and, therefore, it was considered safe for the consumers. Based on the data available, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Sepiolitic clay is safe for dairy cows and weaned piglets at 20,000 mg/kg feed. These conclusions were extrapolated to other dairy ruminants, pigs for fattening and other growing Suidae. The additive is considered safe for chickens for fattening at 10,000 mg/kg feed and for salmonids at 17,600 mg/kg feed. Considering that it is not possible to establish a comparable margin of safety in the four major species, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Sepiolitic clay for other animal species/categories. Owing to the dusting potential of the additive and its crystalline silica content, handling the additive is considered a risk by inhalation for the users. It is not irritant or corrosive to skin or eyes. Due to the nickel content, it is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The additive is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Sepiolitic clay is efficacious as binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use.

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 Allura Red AC for small non‐food‐producing mammals and ornamental birds when used as an additive that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs. The use of Allura Red AC up to the proposed conditions of use of 500 mg/kg complete feed is considered safe for guinea pig, chinchilla, degu, hamster, gerbil and chipmunk. The following maximum safe levels (mg/kg complete feed) apply to the following species: ferrets 99, rabbits 123, canaries, budgerigars, mynah and toucans 45, lovebirds 51, cockatiels 79, cockatoos 115, amazons 145, parrots 147, yellow breast macaw 150, blue‐throated macaw 173 and hyacinth macaw 214. The maximum safe level of Allura Red AC for other small non‐food‐producing mammal is 99 mg/kg feed and for other ornamental birds is 45 mg/kg feed. Inhalation exposure of Allura Red is regarded as hazardous. In the absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the potential of Allura Red to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

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 assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the product Biosprint® (Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885) as a feed additive for weaned piglets. Biosprint® is composed of only viable cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885. S. cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to have qualified presumption of safety status. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel confirms that the use of Biosprint® under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for weaned piglets, the consumers and the environment. The additive is considered as a potential skin and eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need to assess the efficacy of Biosprint® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Avatec® 150G (lasalocid A sodium) for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. In 2017, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on a safe dose for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying and no conclusion could be drawn on the anticoccidial efficacy of the additive at the lowest proposed used level (75 mg lasalocid A sodium/kg feed) in these species. In the present assessment, the applicant submitted new tolerance and efficacy studies in chickens for fattening to address the concerns identified by the FEEDAP Panel in its former opinion. In addition, the applicant proposed to decrease the maximum of the dose range from 125 to 100 mg lasalocid A sodium/kg complete feed. Based on the additional information, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that no safe level of lasalocid A sodium from Avatec® 150G in feed for chickens for fattening can be identified. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the coccidiostatic efficacy of Avatec® 150G for chickens for fattening at the lowest proposed dose level of 75 mg lasalocid A sodium/kg complete feed due to the insufficient number of studies with positive results. The conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying.

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 BioWorma® (Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336) when used as a zootechnical feed additive for all grazing animals. Duddingtonia flagrans belongs to a group of nematophagous fungi that physically entrap nematodes through an adhesive hyphal net. The additive contains the fungus in the form of chlamydospores and is intended to control pathogenic nematodes on pasture, with subsequent benefits for grazing animals. No conclusions could be drawn on the safety for the target species due to lack of data. ■■■■■ As it is not possible to exclude the presence of secondary metabolites (other than flagranones) produced during fermentation and their potential carry‐over into animal products, safety for the consumer could not be established. The Panel concluded that the additive is not irritant to skin and eyes but is irritant to the respiratory tract and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion could be drawn on its skin sensitisation potential. Since D. flagrans is a naturally inhabiting soil organism of world‐wide distribution, the Panel considered that use of an additive based on this organism does not pose a risk for the environment under the intended conditions of use. The strain under application reduced the number of parasitic nematodes on pasture to the benefit of grazing animals when used at the recommended application rate of 3 × 104 chlamydospores/kg bodyweight and day.

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 OptiPhos® PLUS (6‐phytase) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, other minor pig species for fattening and other minor reproductive pig species. The additive is a preparation of 6‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii and has been previously assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the context of two applications for its use in different species/categories. The Panel concluded in those opinions that the production strain is safe, and that the use of the additive as a feed additive would raise no safety concerns for the consumers and the environment. The additive was also considered not to be skin irritant but was found to be a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the tolerance studies provided, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the conditions of use with a wide margin of safety and therefore the conclusion were extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other minor pig species for fattening and to other minor reproductive pig species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and in sows at the level of 250 FTU/kg feed and this conclusion were extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other minor pig species for fattening and to other minor reproductive pig species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 3‐phytase FLF1000/FSF10000 as a feed additive for pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. This additive contains 3‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii and it is authorised in its liquid FLF1000 and solid form FSF10000 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, chickens reared for laying and for minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying or for breeding. The FEEDAP Panel has adopted an opinion regarding the use of this product as a feed additive in pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. In that opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive would raise no concerns for the consumer safety nor for the environment but that the additive should be regarded as a potential respiratory sensitizer. The Panel also concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious in improving the phosphorus utilisation in the target species. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for the target species due to the limitations identified in the data provided. The applicant has now complemented the information and made it available to the Panel. The tolerance trial was done in weaned piglets in which the animals received up to 10 times the recommended dose of 1,000 FTU/kg feed. The results showed no adverse effects of the phytase on the performance of the animals or on the haematological and biochemical parameters measured in blood. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive (3‐phytase FLF1000 and FSF10000) is safe for pigs for fattening and minor growing porcine species at the recommended dose of 1,000 FTU/kg feed.

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 microcrystalline cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Microcrystalline cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: emulsifier, stabiliser, thickener, gelling agent and binder) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of microcrystalline cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to microcrystalline cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that microcrystalline cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of microcrystalline cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of microcrystalline cellulose for the user. The use of microcrystalline cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional group: stabiliser) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose for the user. The use of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: emulsifier, stabiliser, thickener, gelling agent and binder) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to sodium carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that sodium carboxymethyl cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose for the user. The use of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on ethyl cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Ethyl cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional group: stabiliser) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of ethyl cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ethyl cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of ethyl cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of ethyl cellulose for the user. The use of ethyl cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 when used as a technological additive intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. parafarraginis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. The additive is not an eye or dermal irritant but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. Three studies with laboratory‐scale silos were made using samples of easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage. In each case, replicate silos containing untreated forage were compared with identical silos containing the same forage to which Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 was added to reach an intended concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh matter. The results showed that the addition of the additive improves significantly the aerobic stability of the silage tested.

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‐lysine sulfate produced by fermentation using Corynebacterium glutamicum KFCC 11043 when used as a nutritional additive in feed for all animal species. The active substance is l‐lysine. The production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment and was not detected in the final product. l‐Lysine sulfate produced using C. glutamicum KFCC 11043 does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum KFCC 11043 is considered safe for the target species. When using l‐lysine sulfate, the background sulfur/sulfate content in the compound feed should be taken into account. l‐Lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum KFCC 11043 is safe for the consumer and for the environment. From the results of studies on the safety for the user of l‐lysine sulfate produced by a different production strain, it was possible to conclude on the safety for the user of the product under assessment. l‐Lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum KFCC 11043 is considered non‐toxic by inhalation, non‐irritant to skin or eyes and it is not a skin sensitiser. l‐lysine sulfate is considered as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of fumonisin esterase from Komagataella phaffii DSM 32159 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The product has been already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel for use in pigs and poultry feed as technological additive and was granted with an authorisation in the EU for this use. In the current application, the additive is intended to be used in fermenting feeds with the purpose to reduce the contamination of feed by fumonisins. New data provided showed that no recombinant DNA could be detected in three batches of the product. The evidence provided – based on the data submitted in the previous and the current application – allowed the FEEDAP Panel to conclude that the additive is safe for the target animals under the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also considered valid the previous conclusions in which the safety of the additive for consumers and the environment was established. The additive is not toxic by inhalation and the respiratory exposure is likely to be low; however, a risk of sensitisation via the respiratory route cannot be excluded. The additive is non‐irritant to skin and eyes and is not considered as a dermal sensitiser. The additive has the capacity to degrade fumonisins in fermenting feed (with a fumonisin content within the guidance limits operating in the EU) when used at the minimum recommended dose of 40 U/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel notes that the efficacy has been demonstrated only in silages, not in other fermenting feeds like e.g. liquid feeds.

Abstract The tincture derived from Artemisia vulgaris L. (Mugwort tincture) is intended to be used as a sensory additive in feed for all animal species. The product is a water/ethanol solution, with a dry matter content of approximately 1.7% and is specified to contain a minimum of 0.01% hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives (expressed as chlorogenic acid). In a previous assessment, the additive was not characterised in full and about 74% of the dry matter fraction remained uncharacterised (representing 1.24% of the tincture). Therefore, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of the additive at the proposed use levels of up to 400 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species or for the consumer. The applicant has provided new data which show that the unidentified fraction consists of crude fibre, other carbohydrates, and protein; none of which are considered of concern. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the additive is safe when used at the proposed use level of 400 mg/kg feed for all animal species. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the application of the additive at the proposed use level in animal nutrition.

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 hydroxypropyl cellulose as a feed additive for all animal species. Hydroxypropyl cellulose is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: emulsifier, stabiliser and thickener) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species with no minimum and maximum content. A proper identification and characterisation of hydroxypropyl cellulose as required for a feed additive is not available and the occurrence of potential toxic impurities cannot be assessed. The following conclusions apply only to hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that hydroxypropyl cellulose is considered safe for all animal species. The use of hydroxypropyl cellulose in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of hydroxypropyl cellulose for the user. The use of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of iron chelates of lysine and glutamic acid (Iron‐LG) as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The European Commission request followed an opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2019; in that opinion the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The applicant submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, related to the efficacy of the additive, are the subject of this opinion. Three studies were provided, one each with weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and laying hens. In the study in laying hens, improvements in iron content in egg yolk, iron in serum and in other iron‐related blood endpoints were observed. Based on the results of this study, 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 animals’ requirements; the results of the study in pigs for fattening supported the bioavailability of Iron‐LG. The conclusion drawn by the Panel could be extrapolated to all animal species and categories.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 3‐phytase FLF1000 and FSF10000 as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening or reared for breeding, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. This additive contains 3‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii and it is authorised in the EU as a feed additive for feed for chickens for fattening, laying hens, chickens reared for laying and for minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The applicant requested the extension of use of the additive (both forms) to turkeys for fattening or reared for breeding purposes, and the assessment of the solid formulation to be used in pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. The FEEDAP Panel concluded based on previously evaluated data that the additive, in either form, is safe for turkeys for fattening or reared for breeding at the maximum recommended level of 1,000 FTU/kg feed. However, due to lack of data the Panel could not conclude on the safety for pigs for fattening or minor growing porcine species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Both forms of the additive are not irritant to eyes and skin but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The liquid formulation is not a dermal sensitiser but the solid formulation is. The Panel also considered based on previously evaluated data that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding and in pigs for fattening and minor growing porcine species at 500 FTU/kg feed.

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 vermiculite as a feed additive for pigs, poultry, bovines, sheep, goats, rabbits and horses. Vermiculite, which is a magnesium aluminium iron silicate, is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: binders and anticaking agents) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for pigs, poultry, bovines, sheep, goats, rabbits and horses, with no proposed minimum or maximum concentration. The applicant reported a maximum inclusion level, derived from the use of the additive in premixtures of preservatives, of about 50,000 mg/kg complete feed, and suggested typical inclusion levels in complete feedingstuffs below 10,000 mg/kg. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of vermiculite for the target species and the users. The additive is considered safe for the consumer and the environment at the proposed conditions of use. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of vermiculite as a pellet binder or as an anticaking agent.

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Actisaf® Sc 47 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐4407) as a zootechnical additive for calves for rearing. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for calves for rearing, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is not a skin or eye irritant. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal sensitisation potential of the additive. Inhalation exposure is unlikely. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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‐tryptophan produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 11674 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion in 2019 in which they could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target animals and for the consumer due to tryptophan‐related impurities such as 1,1′‐ethylidene‐bis‐l‐tryptophan (EBT). The applicant submitted additional data and the European Commission (EC) has requested EFSA to deliver a new opinion on the safety of the additive under assessment. The manufacturing process has been adjusted to reduce the amount of tryptophan‐related impurities and the analysis of three new batches of the additive indicated that levels of EBT and 1‐methyl‐1,2,3,4‐tetrahydro‐β‐carboline‐3‐carboxylic acid (MTCA) represent no safety concerns for the target species or for the consumer.

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 16244 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the environment and efficacy of DSP® (a mixture of disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Na2EDTA), tannin‐rich extract of Castanea sativa, thyme oil and origanum oil) as a zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening. The European Commission request followed an inconclusive opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2016. The applicant submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, related to the safety for the environment and the efficacy of the additive, were the subject of this opinion. Concerning safety for the environment, the risk quotient (PEC/PNEC) value for aquatic organisms was < 1, indicating no concerns of DSP® for the aquatic compartment; no toxicity data for terrestrial organisms were provided and consequently no conclusion on the safety of DSP® for the terrestrial compartment could be reached, as well as on the risk for groundwater contamination. Based on the results from three studies in pigs for fattening in which final body weight and average daily weight gain were increased, and feed to gain ratio was improved, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that DSP® has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in pigs for fattening.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSAPanel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oil, oleoresin and tincture from Zingiber officinale Roscoe when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. The FEEDAPPanel concludes that the additives under consideration are safe for the target species at the following use levels: (i) ginger essential oil up to the maximum proposed use level of 80 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and 20 mg/kg complete feed (or 20 mg/L water for drinking) for all other species; (ii) ginger oleoresin at the maximum proposed concentrations of 20 mg/kg complete feed for fish, sheep, goats and horses and of 1 mg/kg for pets. For the remaining species, the calculated maximum safe concentration of ginger oleoresin in feed is less than that proposed use level and ranges from 5 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening to 21 mg/kg for veal calves; (iii) ginger tincture at the maximum proposed concentrations of 1.6 mL/kg complete feed for horses and 0.26 mL/kg for dogs. For poultry species, the calculated maximum safe dose ranges between 0.2 and 0.3 mg/L water for drinking. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additives up to the highest safe level in animal nutrition. The additives should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as a skin sensitisers. The use of the additives in feed is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since ginger and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

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 Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 29026 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg forage if used alone, or 5 × 107 CFU/kg forage if used in combination with other authorised microorganisms. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by the EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 29026 at a minimum concentration of 5 × 107 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage material.

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 the safety and efficacy of OptiPhos PLUS®, intended to be used as a feed additive for laying hens, turkeys for breeding, chickens for breeding, minor poultry species for egg production purposes and breeding. The active substance is 6‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The EFSA FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Based on the tolerance studies provided, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the conditions of use with a wide margin of safety. The additive was considered safe also for the consumer and the environment. The additive is not a skin irritant but is a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in increasing the phosphorus utilisation in laying hens at the level of 250 FTU/kg feed. These conclusions were extended to turkeys for breeding and chickens for breeding and extrapolated to minor poultry species for egg production purposes and breeding.

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 turmeric extract, turmeric oil, turmeric oleoresin and turmeric tincture from Curcuma longa L. rhizome when used as sensory additives in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additives under consideration are safe at the maximum proposed use levels: (i) turmeric extract at 15 mg/kg complete feed (or in water for drinking at comparable exposure) for all animal species; (ii) turmeric essential oil at 80 mg/kg feed for veal calves (milk replacer) and 20 mg/kg complete feed (or 20 mg/L) for all other species; (iii) turmeric oleoresin at 30 mg/kg complete feed (or 30 mg/L) for chickens for fattening and laying hens and 5 mg/kg complete feed (or 5 mg/L) for pigs, veal calves, cattle for fattening and dairy cows, sheep, goats, horses, rabbits and fish; (iv) turmeric tincture at 0.8 mL/L water for drinking for poultry, 6 mL per head and day for horses and 0.05 mL tincture/kg complete feed for dogs. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additives at the proposed use level in animal nutrition. Turmeric extract, turmeric oil, turmeric oleoresin and turmeric tincture should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. The use of the additives in feed is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since turmeric and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

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 OptiPhos PLUS® to be used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening, minor poultry species reared for laying, minor poultry species reared for breeding and ornamental birds. The active substance is 6‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Based on the tolerance studies provided, the Panel concludes that the additive is safe for the target species under the conditions of use with a wide margin of safety. The additive is not a skin irritant. It is found to be a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in increasing the phosphorus utilisation in chickens for fattening at the level of 250 FTU/kg feed. These conclusions can be extended to turkeys for fattening and chickens and turkeys reared for laying/breeding and extrapolated to all minor poultry species and other avian species up to the point of lay.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of disodium 5′‐inosinate (IMP) produced by fermentation using Corynebacterium stationis KCCM 80161 when used as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is not genetically modified. Viable cells of the production strain were not detected in the final additive. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. IMP produced using C. stationis KCCM 80161 is considered safe for the target species, for the consumer and for the environment. IMP produced using C. stationis KCCM 80161 is considered not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and not a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel expressed reservations on the use of the additive in water for drinking due to concerns on its impact on the hygienic conditions of the water. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious to contribute to the flavour of 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 Sorbiflore® ADVANCE when used as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is an additive resulting from the fermentation of milk‐based broth with Lactobacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3699. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is intended for use in feed for chickens for fattening at the minimum concentration of 5 × 107 Viable Forming Units (VFU)/kg and the maximum concentration of 2 × 108 VFU/kg complete feed. The data submitted did not allow a full characterisation of the additive, and therefore, uncertainty remains on the nature of the product in terms of viability, on the ratio between the active agents and on the stability and homogeneity of the additive. The active agents fulfil the requirements of the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to the assessment of safety and no concerns are expected from other components of the additive. Consequently, Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is presumed to be safe for the target animals, consumers of products from animals receiving the additive and the environment. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the irritancy of Sorbiflore® ADVANCE to skin and eyes and on its dermal sensitisation potential. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE at 2 × 108 VFU/kg feed has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Biacton® when used as a feed additive for weaned piglets. Biacton® is a preparation of viable cells of Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3740 intended to be incorporated into feed for weaned piglets at a minimum recommended application level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. L. farciminis is a species considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment which requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established and evidence that it does not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach to safety assessment and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, the additive is presumed safe for all target species, consumers and the environment. Biacton® is not irritant to skin, eyes or to the respiratory tract, but should be considered a prespiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential skin sensitisation potential of the additive. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of Biacton® for weaned piglets based on the data available.

Abstract In 2015, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of ammonium, calcium and sodium formate when used as a technological additive (preservative) for all animal species. Sodium formate was considered safe for all animal species at a maximum concentration of 10,000 mg formic acid equivalents/kg complete feed (with the exception of pigs, for which a maximum concentration of 12,000 mg formic acid equivalents/kg complete feed was considered safe). Sodium formate was also considered safe for the consumer and the environment. The Panel also concluded that sodium formate is non‐irritant to the skin, but mildly irritant to the eyes, and is a respiratory irritant with a potential for sensitisation. The Panel also concluded that ‘Sodium formate or solid sodium formate had no discernible effects on microbial numbers in the feed materials examined. The preservative effect of the three formate salts in water for drinking was not demonstrated’. In the current opinion, additional data to demonstrate the efficacy of sodium formate as a preservative in feed for all animal species were assessed. The Panel concluded that sodium formate has the potential to be efficacious as a preservative in feedingstuffs for all animal species at the proposed use level. In the absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the use of the additive in water for drinking.

Abstract The additive perlite (sodium potassium aluminium silicate) is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking agents) for ruminants and poultry. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the characterisation and identification, the safety for the target species and user, and the efficacy of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive perlite as a technological additive for ruminants and poultry.

Abstract Selenium‐enriched yeast produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐3399 (selenised yeast inactivated) (SELSAF) is characterised as organic selenium mainly containing selenomethionine (Se‐Met, ≥ 63%). The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation for selenium‐enriched yeast produced by S. cerevisiae CNCM I‐3399 when used as a feed additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of selenium‐enriched yeast produced by S. cerevisiae CNCM I‐3399 under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. The additive is non‐irritant to skin and eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion can be reached on its dermal sensitising properties. The additive is hazardous by inhalation. Exposure of users by inhalation is very likely. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ProEquo® as a feed additive for horses. This additive is a preparation single strain of Lactobacillus plantarum intended for use as a zootechnical additive in feed for horses. The identity of the bacterial strain was not established. Consequently, the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment cannot be applied, and separate studies on target animals, consumer and environmental safety are required. The tolerance trial provided could not be considered due to non‐compliance with the minimum requirements. No additional studies or data were provided for the other safety aspects. Therefore, in the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of ProEquo® for the target animals, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. ProEquo® should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the irritancy potential of the additive to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of ProEquo® for horses.

Abstract Following a request from European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the modification of the terms of authorisation of montmorillonite‐illite (FIMIX 1g557) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel adopted in 2014 an opinion on the safety and in 2015 on the efficacy of this additive. The additive montmorillonite‐illite (FIMIX 1g557) is currently authorised for use in feedingstuffs for all animal species as an anticaking agent with a minimum and a maximum content of 20,000 mg/kg. The applicant proposed to use the additive in premixtures and complementary feeds for all animal species and categories at a minimum concentration of 20,000 mg/kg premixture and 10,000 mg/kg complementary feeds. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the proposed modification (reduction of the inclusion level in feed) would not affect the conclusions reached in the previous assessment as related to the safety for the target species, consumers, users and the environment. Montmorillonite‐illite is efficacious as an anticaking agent in premixtures for all animal species at inclusions levels starting at 20,000 mg/kg premixture and in complementary feeds at inclusions levels starting at 10,000 mg/kg. When the premixtures or complementary feeds are incorporated into complete feed, the concentration of montmorillonite‐illite would range from 50 to 100 mg/kg complete feed for poultry and all other animal species, respectively. There is no evidence that the anticaking effect of the additive will persist at these concentrations in complete feed. In the absence of specific data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to comment on the efficacy of the additive at these concentrations when used in 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 Sorbiflore® ADVANCE when used as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE results from the fermentation of milk based‐broth with Lactobacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3699. The additive is intended for use in feed for weaned piglets at the minimum concentration of 1.25 × 108 viable forming units (VFU)/kg and the maximum concentration of 5 × 108 VFU/kg complete feed. The data submitted did not allow a full characterisation of the additive, and therefore, uncertainty remains on the nature of the product in terms of viability, on the ratio between the active agents and on the stability of the additive. The active agents fulfil the requirements of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to the assessment of safety and no concerns are expected from other components of the additive. Consequently, Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is presumed to be safe for the target animals, consumers of products from animals receiving the additive and the environment. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the irritancy of Sorbiflore® ADVANCE to skin and eyes and on its dermal sensitisation potential. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE at 1.25 × 108 VFU/kg feed has the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets.

Abstract In 2014, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of calcium formate when used as a technological additive (preservative) for all animal species. Calcium formate was considered safe for all animal species at a maximum concentration of 10,000 mg formic acid equivalents/kg complete. Calcium formate was also considered safe for the consumer and the environment. The Panel also concluded that calcium formate is non‐irritant to skin but causes severe adverse effects in eyes. It is likely that handling the additive could result in skin reactions and in the production of respirable dust that could present a risk to unprotected workers. The Panel also concluded that ‘Data submitted do not provide convincing evidence of the efficacy of the additive when used as a preservative for compound feed or feed materials’. In the current opinion, additional data to demonstrate the efficacy of calcium formate as a preservative in feed for all animal species were assessed. The Panel concluded that calcium formate has the potential to be efficacious as a preservative in feedingstuffs for all animal species at the proposed use level.

Abstract Panavital feed is a preparation of d‐glyceric acid intended to be used as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening. The active substance (d‐glyceric acid) of the additive ■■■■■ by fermentation with Gluconobacter frateurii. The additive is intended to be used in chickens for fattening at a concentration from ■■■■■. The FEEDAP Panel notes that the data provided for the characterisation of the active substance are incomplete and that data on the characterisation of the formulated additive are not provided. Based on the information available, the FEEDAP Panel cannot assess the qualitative and quantitative composition of Panavital feed. Due to lack of data, the safety of the production strain claimed to be used to produce the active substance cannot be evaluated. Based on the data provided by the applicant, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Panavital feed for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment and on the efficacy of Panavital feed when used as feed additive.

Abstract The additive lignosulphonate of magnesium is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: binders) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the absence and/or incompleteness of information needed in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the format requirements of the application and the structure of the dossier. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive lignosulphonate of magnesium as a technological additive for all animal species.

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 Lactobacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3699 when used as a silage additive in forage for all animal species. The additive is the result from the fermentation of milk‐based broth with L. rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and L. farciminis CNCM I‐3699. It is intended to be used in easy and moderately difficult to ensile materials at a minimum proposed application rate of 2.5 × 107 and maximum 8 × 107 VFU/kg complete feed for all animal species. The data provided do not allow a full characterisation of the additive, and therefore, uncertainty remains on the nature of the product in terms of viability, on the ratio between the active agents and on the shelf‐life of the additive. Both strains fulfil the requirements of the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to the assessment of safety and consequently, are presumed safe for the target animals, consumers of products from animals receiving the additive and the environment. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the irritancy of the additive to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential. No conclusions can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive to improve the ensiling process of easy and moderately difficult to ensile materials.

Abstract The additive Shellac is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: stabiliser) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the description of the additive/efficacy, and safety of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the request from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive Shellac as a technological additive for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monosodium l‐glutamate monohydrate produced by fermentation using Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188 when used as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is not genetically modified. Viable cells of the production strain were not detected in the final additive. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. Monosodium l‐glutamate monohydrate produced using C. glutamicum KCCM 80188 is considered safe for the target species, for the consumer and for the environment. Monosodium l‐glutamate monohydrated produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80188 is considered not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and not a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel expressed reservations on the use of the additive in water for drinking due to concerns on its impact on the hygienic conditions of the water. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious to contribute to the flavour of feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of GalliPro® Fit (Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324, B. subtilis DSM 32325 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840) when used as a zootechnical additive in feed and water for drinking for all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The two bacterial species present in the additive are considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agents was established and the lack of toxigenic potential confirmed. The strains did not show resistance to relevant antibiotics. Therefore, the additive was presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation of the additive. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive was considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concluded that GalliPro® Fit is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. However, the data provided did not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with other coccidiostats. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at 1.6 × 109 CFU/kg feed and at 5.4 × 108 CFU/L water for drinking. The conclusion was extrapolated to all other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The results from the study in turkeys support this conclusion.

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 Biacton® when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. Biacton® is a preparation of viable cells of Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3740 intended for use in feed for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens at a minimum recommended application level of 5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feedingstuffs. L. farciminis is a species considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment which requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established and evidence that it does not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach to safety assessment, and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, the additive is presumed safe for all target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the irritancy of Biacton® to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to poor reporting and significant limitations in the data available, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens.

Abstract The additive UD60 (phosphoric acid 60% on silica carrier) is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: preservative) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the characterisation, the safety for the target species and the efficacy of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive UD60 (phosphoric acid 60% on silica carrier) as a technological additive for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of propyl gallate as feed additive for all animal species. Propyl gallate is neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic. Propyl gallate a is safe for veal calves, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, sheep, goats, sows, horses and salmonids at the proposed maximum use level of 40 mg/kg and for ornamental fish at the proposed maximum use level of 100 mg/kg. The following concentrations (mg/kg complete feed) are considered safe for the other target species: 15 for chickens for fattening; 20 for turkeys for fattening, laying hens and rabbits; 27 for piglets and pigs for fattening and 71 for dogs. The Panel cannot conclude on a safe level for cats. The exposure of the consumer to propyl gallate and its metabolites cannot be estimated owing to the absence of reliable data on residues of propyl gallate and its metabolites in edible tissues and products. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the consumer of propyl gallate, when used as a feed additive for all food‐producing animal species. Propyl gallate is irritant to skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is possible and it is considered a hazard. The use of the additive in animal nutrition does not pose a risk for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that propyl gallate has the potential to act as an antioxidant in feedingstuffs. The Panel did not see a reason for the use of propyl gallate as an antioxidant in water for drinking.