Search

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 Agal‐Pro BL/BL‐L®. The additive is a preparation of alpha‐galactosidase produced by a genetically modified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) in chickens for fattening in its solid and liquid forms (Agal‐Pro BL® and Agal‐Pro BL‐L®), and in minor poultry species for fattening and chickens reared for laying only in its solid form (Agal‐Pro BL®). 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 the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is considered an irritant to the skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐β‐1,4‐xylanase (VTR‐xylanase) as a zootechnical feed additive for all avian species, piglets (suckling and weaned) and minor growing porcine species. VTR‐xylanase is available in a powder and a liquid form and is produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.371). 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 additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR xylanase (powder/liquid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.371 is safe for all avian species, piglets and minor growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid and powder formulations of VTR‐xylanase are non‐irritant to eyes but should be considered skin sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the final formulations of the additive to be irritant to skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all laying birds and piglets (suckling and weaned) from all Suidae at 2,000 U/kg and in all other avian species/categories at 1,000 U/kg feed.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of acetic acid, calcium acetate and sodium diacetate as technological feed additives (preservatives) for salmonids/fish. The additives are already authorised for use for all animal species other than fish. In previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that a maximum concentration of 2,500 mg acetic acid/kg complete feed (or 1,000 mg/L water for drinking) was safe for poultry, pigs and pet animals. Ruminants were considered to exhibit a higher tolerance. Due to lack of data for salmonids, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of acetic acid and its salts for fish. The applicant has provided supplementary information consisting in a tolerance study in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and a literature search to support the safety of acetic acid in fish. Considering all the available information, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that acetic acid (and its salts by analogy) is considered safe for fish up to the maximum recommended supplementation level of 2,500 mg acetic acid/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively. The additives are intended for use with all types of fresh materials and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 107 colony forming units (CFU) of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg forage or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg forage. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy since the dry matter content of the ensiled materials at the end of the experiments was not corrected for volatiles, which led to an unreliable estimation of the dry matter loss, and the lack of positive effects on any of the other parameters. The supplementary information submitted by the applicant included updated data on the pH values and the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. However, the estimation of the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles was wrongly calculated and thus, was not considered for the assessment of the efficacy of the additive. Considering the lack of effect on any other fermentation parameter, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive to improve the production of silage under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Ronozyme® Multigrain G/L is the trade name of the feed additive under assessment containing endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase, endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (ATCC 74444). It is authorised for use as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancer) in poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the animal species/categories, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to cause skin and eye irritation or dermal sensitisation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the additive consisting of Companilactobacillus farciminis (formerly Lactobacillus farciminis) CNCM I‐3740 (tradename: Biacton®) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. The additive is a preparation containing viable cells of C. farciminis CNCM I‐3740 at the minimum concentration of 1 × 109 CFU/g additive. It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive in feed for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens at the recommended application level of 5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed. In the context of previous opinions, no conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of the additive in any of the target species based on the data provided. As regards chickens for fattening, in the former opinions the supplementation of the additive at the recommended level showed a significantly greater weight or weight gain compared to birds in the control group only in two studies. New statistical analysis data of one efficacy trial were submitted. The results showed that Biacton® supplemented at 8.5 × 108 CFU/kg feed or at higher levels significantly improved the feed to gain ratio of chickens for fattening compared to control birds or to birds receiving the additive at the recommended level. Therefore, the Panel concluded that Biacton® has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at the concentration of 8.5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to turkeys for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) CECT 8350 and Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) CECT 8700 (AQ02) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling piglets. In a previous opinion the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for the target species, the consumer, and the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser but could not conclude on the skin/eye irritation potential or on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel previously could not conclude on the efficacy of AQ02. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive in suckling piglets. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii ATCC PTA‐127053 (Xygest™ HT) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for all poultry. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Xygest™ HT is safe for all poultry, consumers, and the environment. The additive is not considered to be irritant to eyes and skin but a dermal and a respiratory sensitiser, although exposure by inhalation is unlikely. The Panel also concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens at 45,000 U/kg complete feed and this conclusion was extrapolated to all laying poultry. However, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product in growing poultry at the proposed conditions of use. In the current application, the applicant provided an additional efficacy trial in chickens for fattening. The results showed a higher apparent metabolisable energy (nitrogen corrected) in chickens fed the additive at the minimum proposed level of 30,000 U/kg complete feed when compared to the control group. Considering the previously submitted studies in laying hens and chickens for fattening, and the newly submitted study in chickens for fattening, the Panel concluded that Xygest™ HT has the potential to be efficacious to enhance digestibility in all poultry at the corresponding proposed minimum levels in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing β‐mannanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). The commercial name is Nutrixtend Optim and it is intended to be used as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry for fattening. Based on a tolerance trial in chickens for fattening and the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry for fattening. The Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not give rise to concerns for consumers and the environment. The additive is considered an irritant to skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, it is also considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive at the level of inclusion in feed of chickens for fattening of 30 U β‐mannanase/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to all poultry for fattening.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of BA‐KING® Bacillus velezensis as a zootechnical feed additive to be used as a gut flora stabiliser for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and all avian species for fattening or rearing to slaughter or point of lay including non‐food producing species. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain identified as B. velezensis, which is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that BA‐KING® was safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Additionally, the additive was not irritant to skin but potentially irritant to eyes and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. In the current application, two additional efficacy trials in chickens for fattening were provided. The results showed an improvement in the performance parameters of chickens when supplemented with BA‐KING® at 2.0 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed relative to a control group. Considering the previously submitted studies and the newly submitted studies in chickens for fattening, the Panel concluded that BA‐KING®, supplemented at 2.0 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed, has the potential to be efficacious in all avian species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and non‐food‐producing avian species at the same physiological stage.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium ferrocyanide as a technological feed additive, functional group anticaking agents, for all animal species. The additive potassium ferrocyanide is intended to be used in potassium chloride with a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anion/kg salt. The use of potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to potassium chloride at a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for: pigs for fattening and lactating sows, sheep, goats, salmon and dogs. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys, piglets, veal calf, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horse, rabbit and cats. In the absence of information on the use of potassium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of potassium chloride, supplemented with 150 mg ferrocyanide/kg, can be made. The use of potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that potassium ferrocyanide is not irritant to skin and eye and is not a skin sensitiser. However, due to the presence of nickel, the additive should be considered as a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. The available data do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to conclude on the safety of the additive for the soil and the marine environment, while the use of the additive in land‐based aquaculture according to the proposed conditions of use is considered of no concern. Potassium ferrocyanide is considered to be efficacious as an anticaking agent when included in potassium chloride at the proposed use levels.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DBVPG 48 SF (BioCell®) as a zootechnical feed additive for horses, pigs and ruminants. The product, manufactured in three formulations (microsphere, micropellet and powder), is intended for use in complete feed at a minimum inclusion level of 3 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for horses, 4 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed for dairy cows and minor dairy species, 4 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for calves, cattle for fattening, minor growing and fattening ruminants, piglets and pigs for fattening and minor porcine species and 6 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for sows and minor porcine species for reproduction. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was conclusively established and, therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. The additive, in any formulation, is not irritant to the eyes and skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the proposed conditions of use for horses, dairy ruminants and all pigs. However, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for calves, and neither for cattle for fattening, minor growing and fattening ruminants.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of 6‐phytase produced by the genetically modified strain Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 12056 (APSA PHYTAFEED® 20,000 GR/L) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for pigs for fattening at a minimum recommended level of 1,000 U /kg feed. In a previous assessment, three trials were submitted; one of them showed significant improvements on zootechnical parameters supporting the efficacy of the additive. The other two trials evaluating apparent faecal phosphorus digestibility and bone mineralisation, showed no improvements on phosphorus retention in bone and, therefore, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The applicant submitted two new efficacy studies in pigs for fattening evaluating the animal's zootechnical performance, apparent faecal phosphorus digestibility and bone mineralisation. One of the trials was not considered due to high rates of mortality, culling of animals and medical treatments applied. In the other trial, significant improvements on final body weight and apparent total track phosphorus digestibility were found in the animals that received the phytase at 1,000 U/kg complete feed. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in pigs for fattening.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive containing endo‐1,4‐β‐glucanase produced by Trichoderma citrinoviride IMI 360748 (Hostazym® C). The product is authorised as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for use in chickens for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation for the use in those species/categories, and the extension of use to chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species reared for laying or breeding, ornamental birds and suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, the consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for an extension of use is made. The additive is considered not a skin corrosive or eye irritant, but it should be considered a skin sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin irritant. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 500 CU/kg complete feed in all poultry for fattening, reared for laying or breeding, and ornamental birds, and at 350 CU/kg complete feed in piglets (weaned and suckling, for the period in which solid feed is given).

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 a dry grape extract (Nor‐Grape® α) as a zootechnical feed additive, functional group physiological condition stabilisers ‐ increase antioxidant defences, for all avian species. The additive is already authorised for use as a feed flavouring for all animal species, except dogs. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for all avian species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. Based on the data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin or eye irritant or a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. However, the Panel considered that exposure through inhalation is likely. The use of the feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel was unable to conclude on the potential of the additive to be efficacious under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium and sodium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. The additives sodium‐ and potassium ferrocyanide are intended to be used in sodium chloride with a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anion (anhydrous)/kg salt. 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 anion/kg for: turkey for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds; all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbit, horse, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of sodium and potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys. In the absence of information on the use of sodium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of sodium chloride, supplemented with 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg, could be made. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that sodium and potassium ferrocyanide are not irritant to skin and eye and are not skin sensitisers. However, owing to the presence of nickel, sodium ferrocyanide, is considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be reached on the safety of the user exposed via inhalation for potassium ferrocyanide. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide as feed additives is considered safe for the environment. The additives are considered to be efficacious as anticaking agents in sodium chloride at the proposed use level.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a pancreatic extract (Pan‐zoot) as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of Pan‐Zoot as a feed additive for dogs under the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin/eye irritancy potential of the additive or on the dermal sensitisation potential. Owing to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive may induce allergic reactions to the exposed users. The Panel concluded that there is no need for an environmental risk assessment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product as a feed additive at the recommended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the preparation consisting of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I‐4606, B. subtilis CNCM I‐5043, B. subtilis CNCM I‐4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I‐4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The Panel also considered the additive to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser, but a respiratory sensitiser. Moreover, the data provided were not sufficient to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these flaws and limited the claimed effect to ‘prevent (re)contamination by Salmonella Typhimurium’. Based on the new studies, the Panel concluded that the additive at a minimum proposed inclusion level of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) B. subtilis and 1 × 109 CFU L. lactis per litre showed potential to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium growth in feeds with high moisture content (60–90% moisture).

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase (Hemicell® HT/HT‐L) produced by a genetically‐modified strain of Paenibacillus lentus (DSM 33618) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species to point of lay, pigs for fattening, piglets (weaned) and minor porcine species. The production strain was obtained from a Paenibacillus lentus recipient strain that has been evaluated previously by EFSA and considered to be safe. The genetic modification does not raise safety concerns and there were no antibiotic resistance genes from the genetic modification in the production strain. Viable cells and the DNA of the production strain were not found in the intermediate product used to formulate the additive. Hemicell® HT/HT‐L produced by Paenibacillus lentus DSM 33618 is considered safe for the above‐mentioned target species at the intended conditions of use. The use of Hemicell® HT/HT‐L as a feed additive raises no concerns for the consumer or for the environment. Hemicell® HT/HT‐L is not irritant to the skin and eyes but is regarded as a dermal sensitiser and a potential respiratory sensitiser. The additive has a potential to be efficacious at 32,000 U/kg in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species, and at 48,000 U/kg in turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and weaned piglets.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lentilactobacillus diolivorans (formerly Lactobacillus diolivorans) DSM 33625 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species L. diolivorans is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. The additive is not a skin or an eye irritant. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the skin sensitisation of the additive. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus diolivorans DSM 33625 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg forage may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage material with a DM range of 32–65%.

Abstract The additive Miya‐Gold® consists of viable cells of Clostridium butyricum FERM BP‐2789.The additive is currently authorised in the EU for use as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor avian species (excluding laying birds), piglets (suckling and weaned) and piglets of minor porcine species. The authorisation for chickens and minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying is at a minimum level of 2.5 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed. The applicant has requested to lower this level to 1.25 × 108 CFU/kg feed. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) did not consider any of the five long‐term trials and one pooled analysis of two of them as supporting evidence for the efficacy of the additive at the lower dose due to the incompliance of the husbandry conditions in which the chickens were reared with those indicated in Directive 2007/43/EC. Owing to the lack of adequate data, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Miya‐Gold® at 1.25 × 108 CFU/kg feed for the target species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149 (Natupulse® TS/TS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. The additive under assessment, Natupulse® TS/TS L, does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is tolerated by chickens for fattening, and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all poultry for fattening. Due to the lack of reliable data regarding the potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and on the safety for consumer. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered not to be irritant to the skin and eyes but is considered a respiratory sensitiser, although exposure by inhalation is unlikely. The Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. Due to the lack of reliable data, the FEEDAP Panel considered that a potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage in exposed unprotected users cannot be excluded. Consequently, exposure of users should be minimised. The Panel concluded that the additive Natupulse® TS/TS L has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at the proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 27 compounds to provide a milky‐vanilla flavour belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fifteen of the 27 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 15 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 12 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 12 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the 27 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 5‐methylhept‐2‐en‐4‐one [07.139], 5‐methylfurfural [13.001] and 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [07.024]. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds.

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) contains 6‐phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae, it is currently authorised for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 22594 for A. oryzae DSM 33699. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its recombinant DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final forms of the additive. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) was considered safe for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at the recommended inclusion levels of 500–4,000 FYT/kg complete feed. The use of RONOZYME® Hiphos GT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699 raised no concerns for consumers. In the absence of data on the final formulations, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to eyes or skin, or a skin sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive was considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33699 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at 500 FYT/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase produced by Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94 (RONOZYME® VP (CT/L)) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats and the tolerance trials provided, the additive was considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not rise concerns for consumers and the environment. Owing to the lack of data obtained with the final formulations, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and eyes or on its potential as a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the minimum recommended level of 10 FBG/kg feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species. The safety of the additive for the target species, consumer, user and the environment has already been assessed previously, however the efficacy remained inconclusive due to limitations in the study with chickens for fattening. In the present assessment, the applicant submitted a new efficacy study in weaned piglets. After the assessment of the new data submitted by the applicant, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate in weaned piglets.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase (VTR‐phytase) as zootechnical feed additive for all pigs and all avian species. The additive VTR‐phytase consists of 6‐phytase and it is available in solid and liquid forms. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) was produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.370). 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 additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.370 is safe for all Suidae and all avian species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid VTR phytase and powder VTR phytase are non‐irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered skin and respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens at 1,000 U phytase/kg complete feed. The conclusion can be extrapolated to other birds for egg production or breeding. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of all pigs or growing poultry species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product Huvezym® neXo 100 G/L containing an endo‐1,4‐beta xylanase, an endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase and a xyloglucan‐specific‐endo‐beta‐1,4‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma citrinoviride (DSM 33578) as a zootechnical additive for feed in all poultry species, ornamental birds and piglets (weaned and suckling). The information regarding the production strain did not allow to confirm its taxonomic identification. The batches used for the characterisation of the final formulations showed compliance with the minimum specifications of the additive in terms of enzyme activities but showed ratios between the enzymes lower than the ones specified for the additive. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the below‐described conclusions would apply to the final formulations of the additive as per specifications with xylanase:glucanase, xylanase:xyloglucanase and glucanase:xyloglucanase ratios of 15, 15 and 1, respectively. Based on the data available, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Huvezym® neXo 100 G (granulated form) is neither skin corrosive nor eye irritant but should be considered a potential skin sensitiser. Huvezym® neXo 100 L (liquid) is neither skin corrosive nor sensitising and it is not an eye irritant. Due to lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the skin irritation of the final formulations of the additive. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and breeding, and all growing poultry and ornamental birds at the minimum intended level of 1,500 EPU, 100 CU and 100 XGU/kg complete feed. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for laying hens and weaned piglets.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase produced by the genetically modified strain Trichoderma reesei CBS 146250 (Axtra® PHY GOLD 30L, Axtra® PHY GOLD 30 T and Axtra® PHY GOLD 65G) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species and all pigs. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry species and all pigs at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not give rise to concerns for consumers and the environment. Owing to the lack of data obtained with the final formulations, the Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to eyes or skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, it is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The panel concludes that the additive is efficacious in increasing the phosphorus utilisation when supplemented at 500 FTU/kg for all growing poultry species and all pigs, and at 300 FTU/kg in laying hens and other laying birds.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on l‐lysine monohydrochloride and l‐lysine sulfate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 17927, when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The active substance is l‐lysine, and it was produced in two different forms: monohydrochloride (HCl) or sulfate salts. The production strain was genetically modified. Neither viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final products. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additives did not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The use of l‐lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced by the strain C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 in supplementing feed to compensate for l‐lysine deficiency in feedingstuffs was safe for the target species. The FEEDAP Panel identified risks of nutritional imbalances and hygienic concerns for amino acids when administered simultaneously in feed and in water for drinking. The use of both forms of l‐lysine produced by fermentation using C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 in animal nutrition was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. Exposure of users through inhalation to l‐lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced with C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 was considered very likely. In absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of both forms of the additive to be irritant for skin and eyes or to be dermal sensitisers. l‐Lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate were considered as efficacious sources of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product EnzaPro containing viable cells/spores of strains of Bacillus velezensis (DSM 21836) and Bacillus licheniformis (ATCC 53757) and an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (DSM 33574) as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay. The strains B. velezensis DSM 21836 and B. licheniformis ATCC 53757 were considered to meet the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) requirements. The K. phaffii xylanase production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells and no recombinant DNA of the genetically modified production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the xylanase production strain. EnzaPro is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay at the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of EnzaPro in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers and the environment. EnzaPro is not a skin irritant but should be considered an eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of EnzaPro for the target species. EnzaPro is compatible with diclazuril, halofuginone and nicarbazin.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum) DSM 8862 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis) DSM 8866 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin irritant but no conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive nor to the skin sensitisation potential. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. 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 concentrated liquid l‐lysine, l‐lysine monohydrochloride and concentrated liquid l‐lysine monohydrochloride produced by Escherichia coli NITE BP‐02917 as nutritional and as sensory (flavouring compound) feed additives for all animal species. The production strain did not carry ■■■■■ antimicrobial resistance genes and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final products. ■■■■■ However, since no sequences of concern remained in the production strain, the potential presence of that DNA did not raise safety concerns. The use of the three forms of l‐lysine produced by E. coli NITE BP‐02917 in supplementing feed to compensate for l‐lysine deficiency in feedingstuffs was safe for the target species. This conclusion would also cover the use as a sensory additive. The FEEDAP Panel identified risks of nutritional imbalances and hygienic concerns for amino acids when administered simultaneously in feed and in water for drinking. The use of the three forms of l‐lysine produced by E. coli NITE BP‐02917 in animal nutrition was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. Concentrated liquid l‐lysine, l‐lysine HCl and concentrated liquid l‐lysine HCl were not considered to have the potential to cause respiratory toxicity, or skin sensitisation. l‐Lysine HCl and concentrated liquid l‐lysine HCl were not considered skin and eye irritants. Concentrated liquid l‐lysine, due to its high pH, might be corrosive for skin and eyes. The three forms were considered an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. The three forms of the additive were also considered efficacious as feed flavouring compounds under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 when used as a zootechnical additive (gut flora stabilisers and physiological condition stabilisers) for calves, all other ruminant species and for camelids for rearing and for fattening. The product, manufactured in two forms, as a powder and an encapsulated form, is intended for use in complete feed at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. S. cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the strain has been clearly established and the additive is composed mainly by dried cells of the active agent, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. The additive is not a skin or eye irritant, or a skin sensitiser, but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. However, exposure by inhalation to the encapsulated form is unlikely. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for the target species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives to improve ensiling of forages consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) strains ATCC 55058 and ATCC 55942, respectively, for all animal species. Both additives are intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 5 × 106 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. In two previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy due to the absence of any significant evidence of nutrient preservation. Based on three new efficacy studies provided by the applicant as supplementary information, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of L. plantarum strains ATCC 55058 or ATCC 55942, have the potential to improve the ensiling process by reducing protein degradation in all type of forages as indicated by the reduction of ammonia production.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an aqueous extract of Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck (Citrozest®) when used as a zootechnical additive in feed for weaned piglets and all growing poultry species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is safe for the target species up to the maximum proposed use level of 1,000 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of additive up to the highest safe level in feed. The additive should be considered a skin and eye irritant, and a potential corrosive. The use of Citrozest® as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of Citrozest® as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets and all growing poultry species under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives to improve ensiling of forages consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively, for all animal species. The additives are intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 107 colony forming units (CFU) of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg forage or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg forage, respectively. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy owing to the lack of sufficient evidence for an improvement on the nutrient preservation during the ensiling process. The new data submitted by the applicant as supplementary information provided not enough weight of evidence on the effects of the additives on the ensiling of easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile material, and therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Enterococcus faecium NBIMCC 8270, Lactobacillus acidophilus NBIMCC 8242, Lactobacillus helveticus NBIMCC 8269, Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. lactis NBIMCC 8250, L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus NBIMCC 8244 and Streptococcus thermophilus NBIMCC 8253 (Probiotic Lactina®) when used as a zootechnical additive for cats and dogs. The Panel concluded that Probiotic Lactina® is safe for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that Probiotic Lactina® is irritant to skin and eyes and a respiratory sensitiser, but in the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on its skin sensitisation potential. No conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of Probiotic Lactina® for dogs and cats based on the data available.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a preparation of carvacrol, thymol, d‐carvone, methyl salicylate and l‐menthol (Biomin® DC‐P) for all poultry species. The additive is authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species reared to the point of lay. The safety and efficacy of the additive for those species have been previously evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel). The current application is for an extension of use of the additive for all poultry species under the same conditions of use (recommended level ranging between 65 and 105 mg/kg complete feed). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive Biomin® DC‐P is safe for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, but in the absence of adequate data cannot conclude on the safety for laying/breeding birds. The use of Biomin® DC‐P in feed for all poultry species under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel considered that exposure of users by inhalation is unlikely. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the effects of Biomin® DC‐P on skin and eyes. Biomin® DC‐P has the potential to be efficacious in poultry species for fattening or reared for laying when incorporated into feed at a minimum concentration of 65 mg/kg complete feed. In the absence of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy for laying hens or for other poultry species for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum CNCM I‐5642 (PP102I) when used as a feed additive for cats and dogs. The product under assessment consists of viable cells of a strain of B. longum, a species considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The strain was unambiguously identified as B. longum and was shown not to harbour antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, thus meeting the QPS requirements. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment and since no concerns are expected from maltodextrin, the other component of the additive, PP102I was considered safe for the target species and the environment. Owing to the lack of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy potential of PP102I. However, it should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of PP102I for the target species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of a product consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a zootechnical additive for cats. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32264 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for cats at a minimum inclusion level of 6 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32264 for cats. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive for cats. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that L. reuteri DSM 32264 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from cats receiving the additive at 1 × 1010 CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel had some reservations on the effects in the moisture content, which if maintained overtime, might cast doubts on the benefits on the long‐term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tocopheryl phosphate mixture (TPM) as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The additive has not been authorised for use in animal nutrition. TPM is produced by chemical synthesis and is a mixture of two different phosphorylated tocopheryl compounds in approximate 2:1 weight ratio: all‐rac‐α‐tocopheryl di‐hydrogen phosphate (TP) and all‐rac‐di‐α‐tocopheryl hydrogen phosphate (T2P). It is intended to be used as nutritional additive (as a source of vitamin E) in feed for all animal species and categories. Considering the limited information on the ADMER for the components of the additive and the uncertainties on the potential aneugenicity and clastogenicity of the additive, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and for the consumer. TPM is not a skin irritant nor a skin sensitiser but should be considered irritant to the eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Owing to the uncertainty on the potential aneugenicity and clastogenicity of the additive, it is not possible to conclude on safety for the user. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of TPM for the environment due to lack of data on environmental impact of T2P. TPM is a bioavailable source of α‐tocopherol. The data available, however, do not allow the Panel to establish the relative bioequivalence of TPM as vitamin E. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of TPM for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products of Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii DSM 33574 (Xylamax) as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay. The production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the Panel concluded that Xylamax is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay. Considering the production strain and the results obtained in the genotoxicity studies, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers. The Panel also concluded that Xylamax is not irritant to the skin but should be considered a potential eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 10,000 XU/kg feed in chickens for fattening. This conclusion was extended/extrapolated to chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32203 as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32203 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for dogs at a minimum use level of 6 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32203 for dogs. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive to dogs. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that L. reuteri DSM 32203 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from dogs receiving the additive at 1 × 1010 CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel has some reservations on the effects in the moisture content of stools, which if maintained over time might cast doubts on the benefits on the long‐term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of the authorisation of the feed additive containing Saccharomyces cerevisae CNCM I‐1077 (Levucell® SC) as a zootechnical additive for ruminants. The additive is already authorised for use in dairy sheep and dairy goats, lambs and horses, calves, all minor ruminant species (for rearing) other than lambs and camelids (for rearing) and dairy cows. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for dairy cows, minor ruminant species for milk production and all camelids at the minimum dose of 4 × 108 CFU/kg and for cattle for fattening and minor ruminant species for fattening at the minimum dose of 5 × 108 CFU/kg. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to improve the performance of cattle raised for fattening, minor ruminant species and camelids raised for meat production but could not conclude on the efficacy of Levucell® SC for dairy cows or extrapolate to minor dairy ruminant species or dairy camelids. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support efficacy of the additive in dairy cows. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for dairy cows or other dairy ruminants under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 5 × 107 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 5 × 107 CFU/kg forage has the potential to improve the production of silages from moderately difficult to ensile forages.