Search

Abstract The food enzyme β‐glucosidase (β‐d‐glucoside glucohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.21) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium guanacastense strain AE‐GLY by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in four food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include three additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.206 mg total organic solids (TOS)/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (943 mg TOS/kg bw per day), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 4578. Based on the previous evaluation, the assessment of the new data and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme carboxypeptidase C (EC 3.4.16.5) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PEG by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 2.053 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The toxicity studies were carried out with a xylanase obtained from A. niger strain XEA. The Panel considered this food enzyme as a suitable substitute for the carboxypeptidase to be used in the toxicological studies, because both strains were derived from the same recipient strain, the location of the inserts was comparable, no partial inserts were present and the production methods were essentially the same. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1850 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 901. A homology search for the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a wheat allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, especially in wheat‐allergic individuals, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme has four declared activities: endo‐polygalacturonase ((1–4)‐α‐d‐galacturonan glycanohydrolase (endo‐cleaving); EC 3.2.1.15), pectinesterase (pectin pectylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.11), pectin lyase ((1–4)‐6‐O‐methyl‐α‐d‐galacturonan lyase; EC 4.2.2.10) and non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase (α‐l‐arabinofuranoside non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase; EC 3.2.1.55). It is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PEC by DSM Food Specialties B.V. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in three food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include four additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining six processes. The dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.612 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (204 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 333. Based on the previous evaluation, the assessment of the new data and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme endonuclease (Aspergillus nuclease S1; EC 3.1.30.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium citrinum strain NP 11–15 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.006 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1010 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 168,333. A search for homology of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, especially for individuals allergic to Penicillium. However, the likelihood of such reactions will not exceed the likelihood of allergic reactions to Penicillium. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus tubingensis strain NL151 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.278 mg total organic solids (TOS)/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1669 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 6004. A search for homology of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme, a triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3), is produced with the non‐genetically modified Limtongozyma cylindracea strain AE‐LAYH (B) by Amano Enzyme Inc. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in one process, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining five food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.315 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the quality presumption of safety (QPS) approach of safety assessment and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A homology search for the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to those of known allergens was made and one match with a honeybee venom allergen was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure, particularly in individuals allergic to honey, cannot be excluded, but is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of issues of concern arising from the food enzyme manufacturing process, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (3‐(1–3;1–4)‐β‐d‐glucan 3(4)‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Talaromyces versatilis strain PF8 by Erbslöh Geisenheim AG. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.110 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 2229 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 20,264. A search for homology of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches with respiratory or contact allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Worldwide, fermented foods (FF) are recognized as healthy and safe. Despite the rapid increase of research papers, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of the health benefits and risks of FF. The COST Action CA20128 “Promoting innovation of fermented foods” (PIMENTO) aims to provide a comprehensive assessment on the available evidence by compiling a set of 16 reviews. Seven reviews will cover clinical and biological endpoints associated with major health indicators across several organ systems, including the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neurological, immune, and skeletal systems. Nine reviews will address broader biological questions associated with FF including bioactive compounds and vitamin production, nutrient bioavailability and bioaccessibility, the role of FF in healthy diets and personalized nutrition, food safety, regulatory practices, and finally, the health properties of novel and ethnic FF. For each outcome assessed in the reviews, an innovative approach will be adopted based on EFSA’s published guidance for health claim submissions. In particular, each review will be composed of three parts: (1) a systematic review of available human studies; (2) a non-systematic review of the mechanism of action related to the clinical endpoints measured by the human studies identified in part 1; and (3) a non-systematic review of the characterization of the FF investigated in the human studies identified in part 1. The evidence and research gaps derived from the reviews will be summarized and published in the form of a strategic road map that will pave the way for future research on FF.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with all fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. coryniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 has the potential to improve the production of silages prepared from all fresh plant materials at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐galactosidase (β‐d‐galactoside galactohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.23) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DSM 34099 by Kerry Group Services International, Ltd. (KGSI). The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in two food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 7.263 mg total organic solids/kg body weight per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of concerns resulting from the food enzyme manufacturing process, toxicity tests, other than an assessment of allergenicity, were considered unnecessary by the Panel. A search for the identity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a food allergen from kiwi fruit was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to kiwi fruit, cannot be excluded. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase (4‐α‐d‐glucan α‐maltohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.133) is produced with the genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain LALL‐MA+ by Danstar Ferment AG. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in the processing of cereals and other grains for production of baked products. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.014 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of concerns resulting from the food enzyme manufacturing process, toxicity tests were considered unnecessary by the Panel. A search for the identity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches were found, three with respiratory allergens and one with an allergen from mosquito (injected). The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended 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 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the characterisation of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 19596). The additive is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the characterisation of the production strain, due to uncertainties on whether the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 was genetically modified. However, since viable cells and DNA were not detected in the product, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), produced with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 would not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the origin and history of modifications of the strain. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the characterisation of the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596, which can be considered not to be genetically modified.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use in weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal FEED (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for the target species, consumers and the environment, and that the extension of use to suckling piglets would not affect these conclusions. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 4000 XU and 900 BGU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as a zootechnical feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying, consumers and the environment. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in both formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract EFSA performs dietary exposure assessments for food‐producing and non‐food‐producing animals to deliver risk assessment for mandates on the presence of contaminants in feed. The CONTAM and FEEDAP Panels identified the need to update the animal dietary exposure assessment model used in those assessments in CONTAM Scientific Opinions since 2011 in cases where insufficient occurrence data are available on species specific compound feeds. The Panels proposed in this statement a series of model diets based on groups of feed materials with the possibility to use different feed materials in their formulation. The Panels considered that the currently proposed model diets cover the need of the CONTAM Panel to assess the dietary exposure of animals to contaminants in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. lactis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener‐suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe 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 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 The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizopus arrhizus strain AE‐TL(B) by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in two food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include four additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of six food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed from one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated only for the remaining five processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.086 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (1960 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 22,791. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

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 a preparation of dried cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐4407 (Actisaf® Sc 47) as a zootechnical additive for rabbits for fattening and non‐food producing rabbits. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive is not a skin or eye irritant. However, it should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and all other Canidae. The additive is intended for use in feed for dogs and all other Canidae at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU per kg of complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and no concerns are expected from other components of the product, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Since the additive is intended to be used only in feed for dogs and other non‐food‐producing animals, an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment is not needed. The non‐coated form of the additive was shown to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusion can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the coated form of the additive due to the lack of data. The additive in both forms, should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in preparing and presenting 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 efficacy of feed additives.

Abstract The food enzyme thermolysin (EC. 3.4.24.27) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus strain AE‐TP by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in eight food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to one additional process, to withdraw two processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for use in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.989 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (700 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the mid‐dose tested), the Panel derived a revised margin of exposure of at least 708. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase i.e. EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Cellulosimicrobium funkei strain AE‐AMT by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that the food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in seven food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include three additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of ten food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated only for the remaining nine processes. The dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.049 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (230 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 4694. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended 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 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 The food enzyme pullulanase (pullulan 6‐α‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.41) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Pullulanibacillus naganoensis strain AE‐PL by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in one food manufacturing process. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include seven additional processes and to revise the previous use level. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of eight food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are not carried into the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure was estimated only for the remaining six processes. The dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.004 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The Panel evaluated the repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats submitted in the previous application and identified a no observed adverse effect level of 643 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. When compared with the calculated dietary exposure, this resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 160,750. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended 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 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS/ AveMix® 02 CS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use with weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions that the additive is safe for weaned piglets, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion applied also to the new target species (suckling piglets) for which a request for an extension of use was made. The additive in both formulations (powder and liquid) is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 2140 XU, 1230 BGU and 46 PGLU/kg complete feed.

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 l‐tyrosine as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c401). The applicant has 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 concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, consumers, and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l‐tyrosine is not an irritant to skin or eyes. In the absence of data, the potential of l‐tyrosine to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser cannot be excluded. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive is likely. 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 The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus luchuensis strain AE‐L by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in one food manufacturing process. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include four additional processes and to revise the previous use level. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of five food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.458 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (1726 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a revised margin of exposure of at least 3769. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended 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 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 The food enzyme lysophospholipase (2‐lysophosphatidylcholine acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.5) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain DP‐Nyc81 by Genencor International B.V. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in the processing of cereals and other grains for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids are removed during these food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was not calculated and toxicological studies were considered unnecessary. A search for the identity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

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 The food enzyme oryzin (EC 3.4.21.63) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus ochraceus strain AE‐P by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in nine food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to one additional process, to withdraw two food processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of eight food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.354 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (1862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 5260. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended 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 the alpha‐amylase (Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L) produced with a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 34315) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species. The additive is available in two forms, a coated thermotolerant granulate formulation and a liquid formulation. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulations. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the final product did not trigger safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel concluded that Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L is safe for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 80 KNU/kg complete feed. The use of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumers and the environment. The additive in any form was shown to be non‐irritant to the skin and the solid form was shown to be non‐irritant to the eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the liquid form to be irritant to the eyes or on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers due to lack of data. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive in either form was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser and any exposure by inhalation is considered a risk. In the absence of data, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species.

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 for the consumer of products from animals fed diets with feed additives containing selenium as an active substance. Based on the limited data set available and the several uncertainties, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of organic selenium at the currently maximum authorised use level of 0.2 mg supplemented selenium from organic sources/kg complete feed (within a maximum of 0.5 mg total selenium/kg complete feed) leads to an exceedance of the UL for all the population categories (except elderly and very elderly), suggesting a concern for consumer safety. It was not possible to conclude on the safety of the currently maximum use level of 0.5 mg total selenium/kg complete feed for all consumer categories. Additional data from studies specifically designed to measure deposition of selenium in tissues and products from animal origin resulting from the use of the different sources of selenium would be required to perform a proper risk assessment.

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 Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation 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 the renewal of the authorisation of l‐cystine as nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c391). The applicant has 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 concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l‐cystine is not an irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive cannot be excluded. The present application for the 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 reassessing the efficacy.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. 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. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy 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 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 of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 143953), subtilisin (produced with Bacillus subtilis CBS 143946) and α‐amylase (produced with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CBS 143954) (Avizyme® 1505) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species. The additive is authorised in feed for chickens and turkeys for fattening, ducks and laying hens. In 2020, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation, a reduction of the minimum recommended level in turkeys for fattening and the extension of use to all poultry species. In that assessment, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive due to uncertainties on the characterisation of the production strains and the possible presence of their viable cells and DNA in the final product. Moreover, limitations were identified in the xylanase specifications and xylanase method of analysis. The applicant submitted information to address the limitations previously identified. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. The use of Avizyme® 1505 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive is a mild irritant to skin and eyes; it is not a dermal sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is efficacious in ducks at 75 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 1000 U subtilisin and 100 U α‐amylase/kg of complete feed. In other poultry species for fattening (including turkeys), reared for breeding and reared for laying, the additive is efficacious at 187.5 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 2500 U subtilisin and 250 U α‐amylase per kg of complete feed and at 300 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 4000 U subtilisin and 400 U α‐amylase per kg of complete feed for all poultry species for laying (except for ducks).

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 assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA‐6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. 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. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the eye irritancy 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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18112 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on 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 the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18112 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. 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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18114 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on 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 the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18114 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.