Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract 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 Panax ginseng C.A.Mey. (ginseng tincture), when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, dogs and cats. The product is a water/ethanol (40:60 v/v) solution, with a dry matter content of no more than 6% and a content of 0.01%–0.5% (w/w) for the sum of the two triterpene saponins ginsenoside Rb1 and ginsenoside Rg1. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the tincture is safe for horses, dogs and cats at the maximum proposed use level of 48.6, 228.7 and 162 mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The Panel also concluded that the additive is considered safe for consumers when used at the proposed conditions of use in feed for horses. Ginseng tincture should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the ginseng tincture as a flavour in feed for horses was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the roots of P. ginseng and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive obtained from the dried leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (ginkgo extract) when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, dogs, cats, rabbits and guinea pigs. Ginkgo extract contains ≥ 24% total flavonoids, ≥ 6% total terpene lactones and ≤ 1 mg/kg ginkgolic acids. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ginkgo extract is safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: 2.8 mg/kg for horses and cats, 1.1 mg/kg for rabbits and guinea pigs, and 3.3 mg/kg for dogs. No safety concern would arise for the consumers from the use of ginkgo extract up to the highest level in feed which is considered safe for food‐producing species (horses and rabbits). The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive at the proposed level in feed for the target species is not considered to be a risk to the environment. While the available data indicate that Ginkgo preparations have a distinctive flavour profile, there is no evidence that the ginkgo extract would impart flavour to a food or feed matrix. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Abstract 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with a non‐genetically modified strain of Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 21299), when used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the additive. Therefore, cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 does not raise safety concerns as regards to the production strain. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is considered safe for all animal species, for the consumers and the environment. Due to the presence of nickel, the additive is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. Due to the lack of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be an eye irritant. Cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is effective in meeting animal's nutritional requirements when administered via feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one for cats and dogs. 4‐Hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for cats and dogs at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the additive up to 25 mg/kg complete feed for cats and dogs. Based on the toxicological data available, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is safe for dogs at 25 mg/kg feed and for cats at 18 mg/kg feed. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and to the respiratory tract and is a skin sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the dried fruit of Schisandra chinensis (Turcz.) Baill. (omicha tincture), when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, cats, dogs, and in feed and in water for drinking for poultry. The product is a water/ethanol (55:45 v/v) solution, with a dry matter content of not more than 4% (w/w) and a content of 0.01%–0.15% (w/w) for the sum of schisandrin and deoxyschisandrin. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that omicha tincture is safe at the following concentrations in complete feed: 16 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 12 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and other poultry for fattening or reared for laying/reproduction, 18 mg/kg for laying hens and other laying/reproductive birds, 56 mg/kg for dogs and 47 mg/kg for horses and cats. The additive is considered safe for consumers when used up to the highest safe level in feed for poultry species and horses. Omicha tincture should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of omicha tincture as a flavour in feed for poultry species and horses was not considered to be a risk to the environment. Since it was recognised that the fruit of S. chinensis can influence sensory properties of feedingstuffs, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary for the tincture under assessment.

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 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 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 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 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of nonanoic acid for all pigs and poultry species. Nonanoic acid is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for all animal species at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the active substance from 5 to 100 mg/kg complete feed for all poultry and pig species. In support of the safety of the additive at the new proposed level, the applicant provided tolerance trials in the target species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that nonanoic acid is safe for all growing poultry species and Suidae at 100 mg/kg feed. The Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the new proposed level (100 mg/kg complete feed) for laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and reproductive Suidae. However, FEEDAP Panel considered that nonanoic acid is safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed in laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and 20 mg/kg complete feed for reproductive Suidae. The use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for the consumer and the environment. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant neither a dermal nor respiratory sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

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 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 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 the authorisation of folic acid as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation and the production process has not been modified. The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no evidence to revise the conclusions reached in the previous assessment for the safety for the terrestrial species, consumers and for the environment. The use of folic acid in aquatic animal species to cover their nutritional needs is considered safe. However, the Panel is not in a position to set a maximum safe level for all fish and crustacean species. Considering the narrow margin between the requirement and the tolerated levels seen in some aquatic animal species, the FEEDAP Panel considers that supplementation should not exceed the requirements of the different aquatic animal species. The additive is neither a skin irritant nor a dermal sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of folic acid to be harmful to the respiratory system and irritant to eyes. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid.

Abstract 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Coriandrum sativum L. (coriander oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of coriander oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 30 mg/kg complete feed for piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, salmonids, dogs and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed are: 14 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 28 mg/kg for laying hens, 26 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 28 mg/kg for rabbits and 14 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 14 mg/kg complete feed. The proposed conditions of use for veal calves (10 mg/kg) and ruminants, horses and dogs (5 mg/kg) were considered safe provided that the use in water for drinking alone or in combination with the use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed alone. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of coriander oil up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. Coriander oil should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since C. sativum and its preparations are 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a fraction of the essential oil from the fruit and leaves of Illicium verum Hook.f. (star anise terpenes), when used as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 25% estragole by specification and is obtained by a manufacturing process which results in the enrichment of this genotoxic carcinogen. This is not in line with the principles outlined in the general approach to assess the safety for the target species of botanical preparations which contain compounds that are genotoxic and/or carcinogenic when used as feed additives. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel considered it was inappropriate to perform an assessment of the safety and efficacy of star anise terpenes for its use as a feed additive.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from fruit and stems of Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (bitter fennel oil and sweet fennel oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings). For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of bitter fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 6.1%) at the proposed use level in complete feed: 0.6 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 1.0 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 1.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 1.9 mg/kg for dogs and 7.1 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals (animals for fattening), the Panel had no safety concern when bitter fennel oil is used at the proposed use level in complete feed of 18.2 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 24.3 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 25 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves, cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, horses, rabbits and salmon. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. The use of sweet fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 5.0%) was considered of low concern at the proposed use level in complete feed of 2.3 mg/kg for dogs and 1.9 mg/kg cats. The use of bitter fennel oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for consumers and the environment. 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%), fennel oils are classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. Since the fruit of F. vulgare Mill. ssp. vulgare and its preparations are recognised to flavour food, no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of niacin (nicotinic acid) as a nutritional additive for use in all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on 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 all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin but is irritant to eyes. It is not a dermal sensitiser. Exposure through inhalation is likely. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Melanins are pigments employed in food, cosmetic, and textile industries, manufactured by extraction from cuttlefishes. Their biotechnological production by Streptomycetes, instead, has been poorly investigated so far. In this paper, for the first time, the strain Streptomyces nashvillensis DSM 40314 was tested as an extracellular melanin producer by investigating the influence of diverse temperatures (26, 28, and 30 °C) and pH values (6.0 and 7.0) on bacterial growth, melanin production, and on the activity of the secreted tyrosinase, the first enzyme of the pigment biosynthetic pathway. In physiological 96-h shake flask experiments, the optimal growth parameters resulted to be 28 °C and pH 7.0, at which a maximum biomass of 8.4 ± 0.5 gcdw/L, a melanin concentration of 0.74 ± 0.01 g/L (yield on biomass of 0.09 ± 0.01 g/gcdw and productivity of 0.008 ± 0.001 g/L/h), and a final tyrosinase activity of 10.1 ± 0.1 U/mL were reached. The produced pigment was purified from the broth supernatant with a two-step purification process (75.0 ± 2.0% of purity with 65.0 ± 5.0% of recovery) and tested for its chemical, antioxidant, and photoprotective properties. Finally, characterization by UV-visible and FT-IR spectroscopy, elemental analyses, and mono- and bi-dimensional NMR suggested the eumelanin-like nature of the pigment.

Abstract 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a protease (ProAct 360) produced by a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 33099) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulation. The final product did not trigger a safety concern with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ProAct 360 is considered safe for all growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed. The use ProAct 360 as a feed additive did not give rise to concerns for the consumers or the environment. The additive is not an eye or a dermal irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed for all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from the flower buds or the leaves of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry: clove bud oil, clove leaf oil and a β‐caryophyllene‐rich fraction of clove leaf oil (CCL oil), when used as sensory additives in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Clove oils contain methyleugenol (up to 0.13%). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of clove oils was of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals and of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 25–50 mg/kg for clove bud oil, 28–100 mg/kg for clove leaf oil and 20 mg/kg for CCL oil. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking alone or in conjunction with use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered of low or no concern when consumed via feed alone. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of clove oils up to the highest safe level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. When handling the essential oils, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of clove oils at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since clove bud oil and clove leaf oil are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves and twigs of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of eucalyptus oil is safe at the following concentrations in complete feed: 12 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 18 mg/kg for laying hens, 16 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 22 mg/kg for piglets, 26 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 32 mg/kg for sows, 55 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 48 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 31 mg/kg for dairy cows, 19 mg/kg for rabbits, 55 mg/kg for salmonids, 58 mg/kg for dogs, 10 mg/kg for cats and 75 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of eucalyptus oil up to the highest safe level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as a skin sensitiser. The use of eucalyptus oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since E. globulus 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 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 lemongrass oil obtained from the aerial parts of Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex Steud.) Will. Watson when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that lemongrass oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 125 mg/kg for salmonids; 100 mg/kg for sows and horses; 75 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, sheep and goats; and 50 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 41 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 61 mg/kg for laying hens, 55 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 74 mg/kg for piglets, 88 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 65 mg/kg for rabbits and 33 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 33 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lemongrass oil in water for drinking for poultry, pigs, calves and rabbit is 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 the aerial parts of C. flexuosus 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of star anise oil from the fruit (without or with the presence of plant leaves) of Illicium verum Hook.f., when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of the additive in complete feed at 0.6 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 1.0 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 1.6 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 1.9 mg/kg for dogs and 6.5 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at 83.3 mg/kg for veal calves, 73.3 mg/kg for sheep/goats, cattle for fattening and horses for meat production, 83.8 mg/kg for salmonids, 24.8 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 18.5 mg/kg chickens for fattening, 33.3 mg/kg for piglets, 40 mg/kg for pigs for fattening and 29.3 mg/kg for rabbits for meat production. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered of low concern at 0.6 mg/kg. The use of star anise oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Due to the high concentration of estragole (≥ 1%), the additive is classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. Since the fruit of I. verum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the 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 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 buds of Pinus sylvestris L. (pine tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product under assessment is a ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 2.2%. The product contains on average 0.0882% polyphenols, of which 0.0222% are phenolic acids. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that pine tincture is safe at the maximum proposed use level of 50 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use in water for drinking alone or in combination with use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed alone. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of pine tincture up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. Pine tincture should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of pine tincture in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since twigs of P. sylvestris, which are considered similar in composition to the source material for the production of pine tincture, are described to flavour food, no further demonstration of efficacy is deemed necessary.

Abstract The design of modern devices that can fulfil the requirements for sustainability and renewable energy applications calls for both new materials and a better understanding of the mixing of existing materials. Among those, surely organic–inorganic hybrids are gaining increasing attention due to the wide possibility to tailor their properties by accurate structural design and materials choice. In this work, we’ll describe the tight interplay between porous Si and two melanic polymers permeating the pores. Melanins are a class of biopolymers, known to cause pigmentation in many living species, that shows very interesting potential applications in a wide variety of fields. Given the complexity of the polymerization process beyond the formation and structure, the full understanding of the melanins' properties remains a challenging task. In this study, the use of a melanin/porous Si hybrid as a tool to characterize the polymer’s properties within mesopores gives new insights into the conduction mechanisms of melanins. We demonstrate the dramatic effect induced on these mechanisms in a confined environment by the presence of a thick interface. In previous studies, we already showed that the interactions at the interface between porous Si and eumelanin play a key role in determining the final properties of composite materials. Here, thanks to a careful monitoring of the photoconductivity properties of porous Si filled with melanins obtained by ammonia-induced solid-state polymerization (AISSP) of 5,6-dihydroxyindole (DHI) or 1,8-dihydroxynaphthalene (DHN), we investigate the effect of wet, dry, and vacuum cycles of storage from the freshly prepared samples to months-old samples. A computational study on the mobility of water molecules within a melanin polymer is also presented to complete the understanding of the experimental data. Our results demonstrate that: (a) the hydration-dependent behavior of melanins is recovered in large pores (≈ 60 nm diameter) while is almost absent in thinner pores (≈ 20 nm diameter); (b) DHN-melanin materials can generate higher photocurrents and proved to be stable for several weeks and more sensitive to the wet/dry variations.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the seeds of Myristica fragrans Houtt. (nutmeg oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The additive contains myristicin (up to 12%), safrole (2.30%), elemicin (0.40%) and methyleugenol (0.33%). For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of the additive in complete feed at 0.2 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 0.3 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 0.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 0.6 mg/kg for dogs and 2.5 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at the maximum proposed use level of 10 mg/kg for veal calves, cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, horses for meat production, and salmon and for the other species, at 3.3 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg chickens for fattening, 5.0 mg/kg for piglets, 6.0 mg/kg for pigs for fattening and 4.4 mg/kg for rabbits for meat production. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered of low concern at 0.2 mg/kg. The use of nutmeg oil in animal feed was expected to be of no concern for consumers and the environment. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Based on the presence of safrole, nutmeg oil is classified as carcinogen (category 1B) and handled accordingly. Since nutmeg oil was recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol (produced by Pseudonocardia autotrophica DSM 32858) for all pigs, all poultry for fattening and ornamental birds and other poultry species. The production strain P. autotrophica DSM 32858 is not genetically modified however, uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its viable cells in the final product. Due to the lack of adequate safety data and uncertainty on the presence of nano particles, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumer. The additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes and it is not a skin sensitiser. Considering the low dusting potential of the additive, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. However, the FEEDAP Panel considered that uncertainties remain on genotoxicity and on the possible presence of viable cells of P. autotrophica DSM 32858 in the final product which might have an impact on the safety for the users. The use of the feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Macleaya cordata (Willd.) R. Br. extract and leaves (Sangrovit® Extra) when used as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all poultry species (excluding laying and breeding birds). The additive is standardised to contain a concentration of the sum of the four alkaloids sanguinarine, chelerythrine, protopine and allocryptopine of 1.25%, with 0.5% sanguinarine. Owing to the presence of the DNA intercalators sanguinarine and chelerythrine, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns when the additive is used at the recommended level of 150 mg/kg complete feed (corresponding to 0.750 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed) for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening. No conclusion can be drawn for poultry reared for laying/breeding. The use of Sangrovit® Extra in poultry species for fattening at the maximum recommended level was considered of low concern for consumers. The additive was shown to be irritant to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential of the additive to be a respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to sanguinarine and chelerythrine may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of users should be reduced. The use of Sangrovit® Extra as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for the environment. The additive Sangrovit® Extra had the potential to be efficacious in improving performance of chickens for fattening at 45 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding and extrapolated to all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a preparation consisting of essential oils of thyme and star anise, and quillaja bark powder (BIOSTRONG® 510 all natural) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional groups: digestibility enhancer; other zootechnical additives) for all poultry species. BIOSTRONG® 510 all natural is a preparation of partially microencapsulated essential oils, quillaja bark powder, dried herbs and dried spices. The additive contains estragole (up to ■■■■■. For short‐living animals, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns when the additive is used at the recommended level of 150 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening. For long‐living animals, the use of the additive was considered of concern owing to the presence of estragole. No safety concern would be expected for the consumer and the environment from the use of the additive at the recommended use level in feed. The Panel concluded that the additive is corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin. It may be a respiratory irritant or dermal or respiratory sensitiser. 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 additive BIOSTRONG® 510 all natural was considered efficacious for chickens for fattening at the use level 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. ■■■■■

Abstract 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 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 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.