Search

Abstract Ammonium propionate is authorised as a liquid preparation of ≥ 19% ammonium propionate, ≤ 80% propionic acid and ≤ 30% water. The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation of ammonium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial 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 ammonium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin and eyes. Any exposure is considered a risk. 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 safety and efficacy of tartrazine as sensory additive (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Tartrazine is intended to be incorporated in fishing baits up to a maximum of 30 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them and attract fish in freshwater (ponds, rivers), for both recreational and competitive fishing. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. Tartrazine is already authorised for use with cats and dogs, ornamental fish, grain‐eating ornamental birds and small rodents. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of tartrazine in the preparation of baits for freshwater fish under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the target animals. The use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data, no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of tartrazine in freshwater fish baits.

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 fumaric acid as a technological and sensory additive (functional groups: preservative and flavouring compounds, respectively) and for a new use of the additive as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulator) for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that fumaric acid remains safe under the authorised conditions of use for the terrestrial animals, consumers and the environment. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the aquatic animals under all authorised condition of use. Fumaric acid is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel. The Panel also considers that the new use of the additive as an acidity regulator under proposed conditions of use would not introduce risks not already considered. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation (for its use as preservative and flavouring compound). The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of fumaric acid as an acidity regulator in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to 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 lutein‐rich extract of Tagetes erecta L. as sensory additive (functional group: Colourants (ii) substances which, when fed to animals, add colours to food of animal origin) for turkeys for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening and minor poultry for fattening and laying hens and minor poultry for laying. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta is safe for turkeys for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed use level of 80 mg total carotenoids/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use would not be of concern for the consumer, considering also its use in other poultry for fattening and for laying hens. Regarding user safety, the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta extract is irritant to skin and eyes and any exposure is considered a risk. The conclusions on user safety reached for the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta would, in principle, apply to preparations made with it. The use of the additive in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to colour the skin of turkeys for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Propionic acid is currently authorised as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicants have 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 propionic acid under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive to the skin and any exposure to users is considered a risk. 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 safety and efficacy of diclazuril (Clinacox® 0.5%) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The additive remains safe for the target species and the consumer under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract but is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation cannot be excluded. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the environment of diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% due to lack of data. Diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% at a concentration of 1 mg diclazuril/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying. Development of resistance to diclazuril of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from chickens should be monitored.

Abstract Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial 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 sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects'. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by plants of Prunus avium possibly grafted on rootstocks of either P. avium, P. canescens, P. cerasus, P. pseudocerasus or their hybrids imported from the UK, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Three quarantine pests Scirtothrips dorsalis, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus), one protected zone EU quarantine pest (Bemisia tabaci (European population), and three non‐ regulated pests (Colletotrichum aenigma, Eulecanium excrescens and Takahashia japonica) that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. The risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with Colletotrichum aenigma being the pest most frequently expected on the imported potted plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9971 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned fungus.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of calcium D‐pantothenate for the renewal of its authorisation as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The additive calcium D‐pantothenate is already authorised for use in all animal species (3a841). The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of the authorisation and that the production process has not been modified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Calcium D‐pantothenate is not irritant to skin and eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive, and therefore, there is no need for re‐assessing the efficacy.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additives, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for turkeys for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbits, horses, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additives for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys, and for all species/categories other than the above listed. In the current assessment, the applicant is proposing a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for chickens for fattening and other poultry species (except turkeys) for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and for all species/categories other than the listed above. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide are safe at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for: turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species, all ruminant species, rabbits, equines, salmonids and minor fin fish, dogs and cats. The Panel concluded also that a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride is safe for chickens for fattening and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and all other animal species.

Abstract The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by potted plants and bundles of bare‐root plants or cell grown young plants or graftwood/budwood of Prunus spinosa imported from the United Kingdom, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. One quarantine pest, Scirtothrips dorsalis, one protected zone quarantine pest Bemisia tabaci (European population) and one non‐regulated pest, the scale Eulecanium excrescens, that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. The risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with E. excrescens being the pest most frequently expected on the imported potted plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9981 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned scale.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on red carotenoid‐rich Paracoccus carotinifaciens NITE SD 00017 for salmon and trout (category: sensory additives; functional group: colourants; substances which when fed to animals add colours to food of animal origin) for the renewal of its authorisation. The applicant provided evidence that the additive complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of the additive in salmon and trout remains safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. When assessing consumer exposure to canthaxanthin and adonirubin at the level of the existing maximum residue limits (MRL) for poultry and the proposed MRL for trout/salmon (5 mg/kg muscle), the exposure of consumers exceeds the acceptable daily intake (ADI) in the population classes toddlers and other children. The Panel considers that there is no need to restrict the use of the additive to fish older than 6 months or of more than 50 g. Red carotenoid‐rich Paracoccus carotinifaciens NITE SD 00017 is not irritant to the skin, but is irritant to the eyes. It is considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure via skin or the respiratory tract is a risk.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of indigo carmine as a colourant feed additive for cats, dogs and ornamental fish. In its previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that indigo carmine is safe for cats and dogs at levels up to 250 mg/kg complete feed and for ornamental fish up to 1000 mg/kg complete feed. These conclusions were limited to indigo carmine with a purity of at least 93% colouring matter. For the current assessment, the applicant submitted additional data on the characterisation and on the toxicological profile to support the safety of the additive with the purity of at least 85% colouring matter. Based on the new data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that indigo carmine (purity of at least 85% colouring matter) is safe for cats and dogs at levels up to 250 mg/kg complete feed and for ornamental fish up to 1000 mg/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a 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 the coccidiostat salinomycin sodium (Sacox®) for rabbits for fattening. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of salinomycin sodium (SAL‐Na) from Sacox® does not raise safety concerns for the target species, consumers, users and the environment with regard to the production strain. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of SAL‐Na from Sacox® for rabbits for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumer when it is used at the proposed maximum level of 25 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed for rabbits and a withdrawal period of 1 day is respected. The following maximum residue limits (MRL) are proposed for the marker residue compound salinomycin (SAL): 0.2 and 0.03 mg SAL/kg for liver and kidney, respectively. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes but should be considered a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. A risk for inhalation toxicity could not be excluded. The use of the SAL‐Na from Sacox® in feed for rabbits for fattening up to the highest proposed level will not pose a risk for the terrestrial and aquatic compartment and ground water. The risk of secondary poisoning can be excluded for worm‐eating birds and mammals, while it cannot be excluded for fish‐eating birds and mammals. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that SAL‐Na from Sacox® at the minimum concentration of 20 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in rabbits for fattening. Development of resistance to SAL‐Na of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from rabbits for fattening should be monitored.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6‐phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the 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 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 lanthanum carbonate octahydrate as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for cats. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive lanthanum carbonate octahydrate is safe for adult dogs at the maximum recommended level of 7500 mg/kg complete feed. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes, is not a skin sensitiser and exposure by inhalation is considered to be unlikely. The Panel also concluded that lanthanum carbonate octahydrate is efficacious in the reduction of phosphorus bioavailability in adult dogs at the minimum inclusion level of 1500 mg/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 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, 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 the selenised yeast (inactivated) Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402 (Plexomin® Se 3000, available in two forms: ‘granules’ and ‘micro’) as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on a tolerance–efficacy trial, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species. In the absence of deposition data in all animal species and products, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer. Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules) is dust‐free; therefore, the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) presents a risk by inhalation. Both forms of the additive (granules and micro) are considered as respiratory sensitisers. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal and eye irritation potential of Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules). Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) is not irritant to the skin and the eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is an efficacious source of selenium in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monensin sodium (Coxidin®) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Coxidin® remains safe for turkeys for fattening (up to 16 weeks) and extends this conclusion to turkeys reared for breeding (up to 16 weeks). The Panel was not in the position to confirm that the current maximum authorised level of 125 mg monensin sodium/kg complete feed remains safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® at the corresponding maximum authorised/proposed use levels in the target species is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for poultry tissues ensure consumer safety. No withdrawal time is necessary. Both formulations of Coxidin® pose a risk by inhalation. The formulation with wheat bran as a carrier was neither irritant to the skin nor a skin sensitiser but it was irritant to the eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be made on the potential of the formulation containing calcium carbonate to be irritant to skin and eyes and to be a skin sensitiser. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® in complete feed for the target species poses no risk for the terrestrial compartments and for sediment. No risk for groundwater is expected. For chickens for fattening the risk for aquatic compartment cannot be excluded, but no risks are expected for the other animal categories. There is no risk of secondary poisoning. Coxidin® is efficacious in controlling coccidiosis at a level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and at 60 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening. These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding. The Panel noted that there are signs of development of resistance of Eimeria spp. to monensin sodium.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the coccidiostat narasin (Monteban® G100) for chickens for fattening. In a previous opinion, uncertainties remained on the identification and characterisation of the non‐genetically modified production strain of the active substance narasin. The Panel could not conclude either on the safety of Monteban® G100 for chickens for fattening or on the efficacy of the additive at the minimum applied concentration. The FEEDAP Panel excluded risks for environment but the risk for sediment compartment could not be assessed. The applicant provided supplementary information to cover the data gaps and substituted the narasin production strain from Streptomyces spp. NRRL 8092 to Streptomyces spp. NRRL B‐67771. The information submitted to taxonomically identify the production strain did not allow to assign it to any described microbial species. Based on the information provided, the Panel concluded that the use of Monteban® G100 did not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain for the target animal, consumer, user and environment. The Panel concluded that 70 mg narasin/kg complete feed was safe for chickens for fattening with a margin of safety of 1.4; narasin from Monteban® G100 was unlikely to increase shedding of Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni. Narasin, when used in chickens for fattening at 70 mg/kg feed, was not expected to pose a risk to the aquatic compartment and to sediment, while a risk for the terrestrial compartment could not be excluded. No risk for groundwater was expected, nor for secondary poisoning via the terrestrial food chain, but the risk of secondary poisoning via the aquatic food chain could not be excluded. The Panel concluded that 60 mg narasin/kg feed was efficacious in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine 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 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 The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High‐risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by defoliated 1‐ or 2‐year old bare root plants for planting (grafted or not) of 12 Prunus species (Prunus armeniaca, P. avium, P. canescens, P. cerasifera, P. cerasus, P. davidiana, P. domestica, P. dulcis, P. fontanesiana, P. persica, P. salicina, P. tomentosa) imported from Moldova, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the applicant country. The evaluation identified three EU‐quarantine pests, Erwinia amylovora (protected zone quarantine pest), Xiphinema rivesi non‐EU populations and Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni (protected zone quarantine pest), which were selected for further evaluation, based on defined criteria, including their presence in the applicant country. It should be noted that there is uncertainty regarding whether all relevant pests have been identified due to a limited number of scientific publications and pest surveys in Moldova. For the three selected pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from Moldova were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on it, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with Erwinia amylovora being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9823 and 10,000 bundles (comprising 10–20 plants per bundle) out of 10,000 bundles would be free from E. amylovora.

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 Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149, intended for use as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. The safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously; however, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers and the users due to lack of reliable data on the potential genotoxicity of the additive. In the present assessment, the applicant submitted a new in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. After the assessment of the data newly submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for target species and consumer safety. The additive is not irritant to the eyes or skin. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser.

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 safety and efficacy of phenylcapsaicin (aXiphen®) as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) in feed for chickens for fattening. The additive under assessment, phenylcapsaicin, is safe for chickens for fattening up to the maximum proposed use level of 15 mg/kg complete feed. A margin of safety could not be established. Phenylcapsaicin is not genotoxic. The reference point for phenylcapsaicin derived from a 90‐day repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats is 37.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the lowest of the model averaged BMDL20 values for alanine aminotransferase increase in plasma. The metabolic similarity in the laboratory animals and the target species was not demonstrated and the identity of the marker residue could not be established. In the absence of such data, the safety for the consumers could not be evaluated. The inhalation exposure of phenylcapsaicin (as liquid) for the user was considered unlikely. The FEEDAP Panel considered the additive irritant to the eyes but not to the skin and it is not a dermal sensitiser. In the absence of appropriate data, the environmental risk assessment for phenylcapsaicin could not be performed. It is unlikely that phenylcapsaicin bioaccumulates in the environment and the risk of secondary poisoning is considered low. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in chickens for fattening at 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 a new preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine, with selenium content of 4%, as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Zinc‐l‐selenomethionine is already authorised for use in all animal species (3b818). Current authorisation defines the additive as ‘Solid preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine with a selenium content of 1–2 g/kg’. The applicant developed a new preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine containing a minimum of 40 g Se/kg and seeks to modify the current authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the newly proposed preparation is considered safe for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel recommends adding, to the currently existing authorisation, a new preparation (40–46 g Se/kg) and not the range proposed by the applicant (1–46 g Se/kg), since no characterisation data on the intermediate preparation range (from 2 to 40 g Se/kg) have been provided. The use of the new preparation (minimum 40 g Se/kg) of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The newly proposed preparation presents a risk by inhalation; it is not irritant to eyes or skin. No conclusion can be reached regarding dermal sensitisation. The previous conclusion by the Panel on the safety for the environment remains unchanged. The Panel concluded that the modification request has no impact on efficacy.

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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 23231 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that evidence has been provided that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. The Panel also concluded that L. brevis DSM 23231 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the studies submitted regarding user safety, the preparation of the additive tested was shown not to be a skin or eye irritant. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. 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 safety and efficacy of benzoic acid (Kalama®) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at a level of 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at a minimum content of 5000 mg/kg and a maximum content of 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that benzoic acid is safe for weaned piglets at 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The Panel considered the use of benzoic acid under the proposed conditions of use to be of no concern for consumer safety and the environment. Benzoic acid poses a risk by inhalation, it is irritant to skin and corrosive to eyes, but no conclusions can be drawn on dermal sensitisation. The additive, benzoic acid, is efficacious as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets and for pigs for fattening at 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 natrolite–phonolite obtained from volcanic rock from Kaiserstuhl as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. However, from the tolerance studies in cattle for fattening and weaned piglets, effects observed in animal performance and blood clinical biochemistry suggest adverse effects on the animals supplemented with the additive. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant. The additive is considered a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. In the absence of suitable data, the presence of small/nanoparticles cannot be excluded. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

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 copper(II)‐betaine as a nutritional additive for all animal species and on the safety for the marine sediment when the additive is used in sea cages. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the risk to the marine sediment is acceptable when the additive is used in sea cages. The additional statistical analysis of the results of the efficacy study already assessed in the previous opinion did not allow the Panel to 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 assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of zinc chloride hydroxide monohydrate as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (3b609). The applicant reported changes in the production process and requested a change 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 the additive under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species and the consumers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed use levels for the terrestrial species and land‐based aquaculture systems is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for marine sediment compartment, when it is used in sea cages. The additive is an eye irritant, but not irritant to the skin and not a skin sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely, but in the absence of data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the risk of exposure by inhalation. 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the environment of the coccidiostat semduramicin sodium (Aviax 5%) when used in feed for chickens for fattening. The additive Aviax 5% is intended to be used as a coccidiostat in feed for chickens for fattening at a level of 20–25 mg semduramicin sodium/ kg complete feed. The safety and efficacy of the additive was evaluated by the FEEDAP Panel in 2018 and 2022. In those opinions it was concluded that the additive is safe for the target species and consumer, while no conclusions could be made on the irritancy of Aviax 5% to skin and eye and on the potential for dermal and respiratory sensitisation. Regarding the safety for the environment, the Panel concluded that a risk for the terrestrial compartment could not be excluded. Based on new data submitted, no risk is expected from the use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed conditions of use for the terrestrial compartment. The previous conclusions of the FEEDAP Panel on the safety of the additive for the environment can be updated as follows: the use of semduramicin sodium from Aviax 5% in feed for chickens for fattening up to 25 mg/kg complete feed does not pose a risk for groundwater nor for aquatic, terrestrial and sediment compartments.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non‐irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zeolites (≥ 50%) obtained from Neapolitan Yellow Tufa as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. The additive is specified to contain not less than 50% of zeolites, namely phillipsite, chabazite and analcime. Neapolitan Yellow Tufa originates from the volcanic activity of Campi Flegrei, Italy. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to a lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritancy and on the dermal and respiratory sensitisation potential of the additive. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. The additive is safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species at 20,000 mg/kg complete feed.

Abstract The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High‐risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by bare root plants of Malus domestica grafted on rootstocks of either Malus domestica or Malus sylvestris imported from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Bosnia and Herzegovina. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. One protected zone quarantine pest, Erwinia amylovora, fulfilled all relevant criteria and was selected for further evaluation. For E. amylovora, special requirements are specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Based on the information provided in the Dossier, these specific requirements for E. amylovora are not met.

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 application for renewal of orthophosphoric acid as a technological additive (functional group: preservatives) for 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 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 provided that the optimal Ca:P ratio is maintained. Additionally, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that orthophosphoric acid remains safe for the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, orthophosphoric acid is corrosive to the skin and eyes and should be considered as hazardous to the respiratory tract. 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 safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 19455 as a technological feed additive for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The Panel concluded that L. buchneri DSM 19455 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, L. buchneri DSM 19455 was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive with inulin as a carrier tested is not irritant to skin and eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. 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 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.