Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the renewal of the feed additive consisting of canthaxanthin (Carophyll® Red 10%) for breeder hens and to modify the additive specifications by substituting ethoxyquin by 4.4% butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and increasing the limit for dichloromethane to 80 mg/kg. The additive complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) notes that the proposed modifications for the additive are considered to be of no concern. The Panel concluded that CAROPHYLL®Red 10% remains safe for the target species and the consumer under the current authorised conditions of use for CAROPHYLL® Red 10%. The Panel noted that the current maximum residue limits (MRLs) set in the different authorisations for canthaxanthin may not be protective enough for the consumer when considering combined exposure by all possible routes. CAROPHYLL® Red 10% should be considered to be irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and to be a skin sensitiser; any exposure is considered a risk. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude whether the additive CAROPHYLL® Red 10% remains safe for the environment under the current conditions of the authorisation. 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 product consisting of the protease produced with the genetically modified strain Bacillus subtilis CBS 148232, and viable spores of Bacillus velezensis NRRL B‐50508, B. velezensis NRRL B‐50509 and B. subtilis NRRL B‐50510 (Syncra® SWI 201 TPT) as a zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening and other growing porcine species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the use of the active agents B. velezensis NRRL B‐50508, B. velezensis NRRL B‐50509 and B. subtilis NRRL B‐50510 in animal nutrition is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Similarly, the Panel concluded that the use of B. subtilis CBS 148232 as a production strain of the protease present in the final product does not raise safety concerns. No viable cells and no DNA of this strain were detected in the intermediate concentrates used to formulate the final additive. Based on the results obtained in a tolerance trial in weaned piglets, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Syncra® SWI 201 TPT is safe for pigs for fattening and other growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. Syncra® SWI 201 TPT is not irritant to the eyes or the skin but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive does not raise safety concerns for the environment. Syncra® SWI 201 TPT has the potential to be efficacious when supplemented in the feed of pigs for fattening and other minor porcine species at the same physiological stage at 5000 protease units (U)/kg and 1.5 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐arginine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80387 as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (category: nutritional additive; functional group: amino acids, their salts and analogues; and category: sensory additives; functional group: flavouring compounds). The production strain C. glutamicum KCCM 80387 is a genetically modified strain and raises no safety concerns. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. The use of l‐arginine produced by fermentation with C. glutamicum KCCM 80387 in feed as nutritional additive or as flavouring compound is safe for the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of l‐arginine in water for drinking. The use of l‐arginine produced by fermentation with C. glutamicum KCCM 80387 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l‐arginine produced with C. glutamicum KCCM 80387 is not irritant to skin, and not a dermal sensitiser but is irritant to the eyes and respiratory tract. The additive l‐arginine produced by fermentation with C. glutamicum KCCM 80387 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐arginine for non‐ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l‐arginine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen. l‐Arginine is also considered efficacious when used as a flavouring compound in animal nutrition.

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 biotin as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The applicants 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 regarding the safety of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that biotin remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that biotin is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a dermal sensitiser. Exposure to the additive by inhalation is likely. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of a preparation Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions for all animal species, consumers and the environment, for which the additive is considered to remain safe. Regarding the user safety, the additive is a preparation containing a microorganism and therefore should be considered a 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 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‐valine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058 as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c370). 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 (FEEDAP) 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‐valine produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80058 is not an irritant to skin or eyes nor a skin sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and therefore there is no need for re‐assessing the efficacy.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of calcium d‐pantothenate and d‐panthenol for the renewal of its authorisation. Calcium d‐pantothenate and d‐panthenol are currently authorised as nutritional feed additives for all animal species and categories. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of calcium d‐pantothenate and d‐panthenol as feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the target species, the consumer and the environment. Calcium d‐pantothenate is not irritant to skin and eyes and is not a dermal sensitiser. d‐panthenol is considered to be a skin and eye irritant and a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of this 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 authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CECT 4528 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is a preparation containing a microorganism and therefore should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. 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 renewal of bentonite as a technological feed additive in the functional group of substances for reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins for ruminants, poultry and pigs. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for ruminants, poultry and pigs, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel concludes that bentonite is not irritant to the skin but is irritant to the eyes and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Any exposure is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of choline chloride as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The additive is already authorised for use in all animal species (3a890). The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the active substance choline chloride should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser; therefore, any exposure via skin or respiratory tract is considered a risk. Although aqueous solutions of up to 70% choline chloride are considered non‐irritant to eyes, no conclusion can be reached on the eye irritation potential for more concentrated forms. These conclusions would apply, in principle, to any preparations produced with the active substance. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and therefore there is no need for re‐assessing the efficacy.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of vitamin B2 98% and vitamin B2 80% in the form of riboflavin produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Bacillus subtilis (CGMCC 7.449) as nutritional feed additives for all animal species. Viable cells and DNA of the production strain were not detected in the final products and therefore, the use of B. subtilis CGMCC 7.449 to produce vitamin B2 does not raise safety concerns. The use of vitamin 98% and 80% produced with B. subtilis CGMCC 7.449 in animal nutrition does not represent a safety concern for the target species, consumers and for the environment. The additives are not dermal nor eye irritants but are dermal and respiratory sensitisers. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The additives under assessment are effective in covering the animals' requirements of vitamin B2 when administered via feed.

Abstract This novel study applies targeted functional proteomics to examine tissues and cells obtained from a cohort of individuals with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery (BS), using a Reverse-Phase Protein Array (RPPA). In obese individuals, visceral adipose tissue (VAT), but not subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), shows activation of DNA damage response (DDR) markers including ATM, ATR, histone H2AX, KAP1, Chk1, and Chk2, alongside senescence markers p16 and p21. Additionally, stress-responsive metabolic markers, such as survivin, mTOR, and PFKFB3, are specifically elevated in VAT, suggesting both cellular stress and metabolic dysregulation. Conversely, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), while exhibiting elevated mTOR and JNK levels, did not present significant changes in DDR or senescence markers. Following BS, unexpected increases in phosphorylated ATM, ATR, and KAP1 levels, but not in Chk1 and Chk2 nor in senescence markers, were observed. This was accompanied by heightened levels of survivin and mTOR, along with improvement in markers of mitochondrial quality and health. This suggests that, following BS, pro-survival pathways involved in cellular adaptation to various stressors and metabolic alterations are activated in circulating PBMCs. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that the DDR has a dual nature. In the case of VAT from individuals with obesity, chronic DDR proves to be harmful, as it is associated with senescence and chronic inflammation. Conversely, after BS, the activation of DDR proteins in PBMCs is associated with a beneficial survival response. This response is characterized by metabolic redesign and improved mitochondrial biogenesis and functionality. This study reveals physiological changes associated with obesity and BS that may aid theragnostic approaches.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella enterica ser. Gallinarum B/00111, intended for be as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all poultry species. Bafasal® is proposed for use in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed to guarantee a minimum daily dose of 2 × 106 PFU/bird, to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry carcasses and load in the environment, and to improve the zootechnical performance of the treated animals. In previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Bafasal® is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment and is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion could be drawn on its dermal sensitisation potential. The additive showed the potential to decrease the counts of two Salmonella Enteritidis strains in boots swabs and caecal digesta of chickens for fattening. However, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the capacity of Bafasal® to improve the zootechnical performance of poultry, to reduce the contamination of other Salmonella enterica strains, serovars or other Salmonella spp. in chickens, or to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry other than chickens. In the current application, the claim on zootechnical performance has been withdrawn. Bafasal® is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser and inhalation and dermal exposure is considered a risk. Based on the new data provided, the Panel concluded that Bafasal® has the potential to reduce the environmental contamination with S. Enteritidis when used in feed and water for all poultry species. No conclusions could be drawn on the effects of the additive on other Salmonella serotypes.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis L. (sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that sage oil is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 20 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 3 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and turkeys for fattening, 4 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 5 mg/kg for piglets, 6 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 7 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 11 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacers) and salmonids, 10 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 12 mg/kg for dogs and 2 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 2 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, sage oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis is 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 the authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 40027 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for use in fresh material 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 FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusion that the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. However, it should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 41028 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 109 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 antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 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 with the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not a skin irritant, but the Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of L. plantarum NCIMB 41028 at a minimum level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh plant material has the potential to improve the production of silage from fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 30148 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 109 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 antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 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 with the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not a skin irritant, but the Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of L. plantarum NCIMB 30148 at a minimum level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh plant material has the potential to improve the production of silage from fresh material.

Abstract The safety of bisphenol A (BPA) due to its adverse effects on the immune system has led to an increasing concern and a significant regulatory shift. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) proposed a reduction in the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of BPA in food in their 2023 scientific opinion, highlighting the need for stricter regulations compared to their previous assessment in 2015. This regulatory action has spurred the production of BPA alternatives, raising concerns about their safety due to insufficient toxicological data. Addressing this gap is crucial for ensuring human and environmental health. In this project, multiple genotoxicity endpoints were applied for testing of two regulatory relevant BPA alternatives, bisphenol E (BPE) and bisphenol P (BPP), in different human models: 2D HepG2 liver cells, 3D liver spheroids and primary human peripheral blood lymphocytes. DNA strand breaks and oxidised base lesions were evaluated by the enzyme‐modified version of the comet assay, while clastogenicity and aneugenicity were analysed by the in vitro micronucleus assay (OECD TG 487, 2016), together with cytotoxicity. Development of new advanced models (NAMs), as 3D spheroids, are essential for next‐generation risk assessment (NGRA) in line with the 3R's to replace, reduce or refine animal experiments. In this aspect, validation and standardisation of NAMs are needed to reach regulatory readiness level and development of OECD Test Guidelines. Therefore, a standardisation and pre‐validation of the advanced 3D liver spheroid model was performed by using multiple genotoxicity endpoints and by comparing the obtained results with standard genotoxicity models.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of a feed additive consisting of vitamin B2/riboflavin produced with Eremothecium ashbyi CCTCCM 2019833 intended for use as a nutritional additive (functional group: vitamins, pro‐vitamins and chemically well‐defined substances having similar effects) for all animal species. The characterisation, safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously; however, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers and the users due to lack of reliable toxicological data. In the present assessment, the applicant submitted new genotoxicity and repeated dose oral toxicity studies. After the assessment of the data newly submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no safety concern for the target species and the consumer. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser, but it is considered a respiratory sensitiser.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh or dried flowering stems of Salvia sclarea L. (clary sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacers), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, 10 mg/kg for horses, 20 mg/kg for dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 8 mg/kg for laying hens, 7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 9 mg/kg for piglets, 11 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 14 mg/kg for sows, 13 mg/kg for dairy cows, 8 mg/kg for rabbits and 4 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 4 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water of clary sage oil is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of clary sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering stems of S. sclarea is 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 efficacy of two technological additives (functional group: silage 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 of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg fresh material or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg fresh material. 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 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 dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. The results showed that, at the end of the ensiling process, the dry matter loss during the ensiling was significantly lower in the ensiled materials treated with E. faecium ATCC 53519 or ATCC 55593 compared to controls. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the addition of E. faecium ATCC 53519 or ATCC 55593 in all types of fresh plant materials shows potential to improve the nutrient preservation of silage at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ponceau 4R as sensory additives (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). The additive is already authorised for use with cats and dogs and ornamental fish. The additive is intended to be incorporated in freshwater fishing baits up to a maximum of 15 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them. The additive is intended to be incorporated into feed directly in solid form or via an aqueous solution. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ponceau 4R is considered safe when used in fish baits for freshwater fish at the maximum proposed dose of 15 mg/kg complementary feed. The use of the feed additive ponceau 4R fish baits for freshwater fish under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. Ponceau 4R is not skin irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of ponceau 4R in freshwater fish baits.

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 Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1077 as a zootechnical feed additive for several animal species. The additive, existing in a not‐coated and a coated form, is currently authorised for use in feed for calves, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, dairy goats and dairy sheep, lambs, all minor ruminant species for fattening and rearing, horses and camelids for fattening and rearing. This application regards the request for the extension of use in all ruminants and camelids reared for milk production/suckling/reproduction, all minor (young) ruminant species and camelids for fattening and Equidae other than horses, and the modification of the authorisation for lambs to reduce the minimum use level. The identity of the active agent as S. cerevisiae was confirmed. Based on the qualified presumption of safety approach and since no concerns are expected from other components, the additive is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The not‐coated form of the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. The additive in both formulations should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. No conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the coated form of the additive due to the lack of data. The additive has the potential to be efficacious when used in feed for all ruminants and camelids reared for milk production/suckling/reproduction at the minimum proposed use level of 5 × 108 CFU (colony forming unit)/kg complete feed, all minor (young) ruminant species and camelids for fattening and lambs at 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed, and in all Equidae species other than horses at 3 × 109 CFU/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 renewal of authorisation of a preparation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead to the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions for all animal species, consumers and the environment, for which the additive is considered to remain safe. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that L. paracasei NCIMB 30151 should be considered a 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 renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on a formulation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 33862 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 12856 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with fresh plant material with a dry matter (DM) range of 32%–65% at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material to be used for all animal species. The bacterial species B. subtilis and L. buchneri are considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strains was established, no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected in any of the two active agents and no evidence of toxigenic potential was found in B. subtilis DSM 33862. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strains as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed with the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive contains microorganisms and therefore should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Inhalation and dermal exposure is considered a risk. These conclusions would apply, in principle, to any preparations containing the active agents. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive containing B. subtilis DSM 33862 and L. buchneri DSM 12856 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant materials with a DM range of 32%–65%.

Abstract Ammonium propionate is authorised as a liquid preparation of ≥ 19% ammonium propionate, ≤ 80% propionic acid and ≤ 30% water. The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation of ammonium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of ammonium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin and eyes. Any exposure is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l‐arginine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 7.401). The additive is intended to be used in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The genetic modifications introduced do not raise safety concerns. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. l‐Arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed and water. The use of l‐arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for persons handling the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or to be a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. The additive l‐arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐arginine for non‐ruminant species. For supplemental l‐arginine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh 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. buchneri 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 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 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%–45%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel 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 tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long‐living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia 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 present opinion is the follow‐up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle‐TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano‐specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non‐brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re‐evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non‐irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non‐irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tartrazine as sensory additive (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Tartrazine is intended to be incorporated in fishing baits up to a maximum of 30 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them and attract fish in freshwater (ponds, rivers), for both recreational and competitive fishing. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. Tartrazine is already authorised for use with cats and dogs, ornamental fish, grain‐eating ornamental birds and small rodents. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of tartrazine in the preparation of baits for freshwater fish under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the target animals. The use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data, no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of tartrazine in freshwater fish baits.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R618 as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying. The additive has never been authorised. The strain under assessment S. cerevisiae (NCYC R618) qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) and, consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the product is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin and eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive under the proposed 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 the renewal of the authorisation of fumaric acid as a technological and sensory additive (functional groups: preservative and flavouring compounds, respectively) and for a new use of the additive as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulator) for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that fumaric acid remains safe under the authorised conditions of use for the terrestrial animals, consumers and the environment. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the aquatic animals under all authorised condition of use. Fumaric acid is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel. The Panel also considers that the new use of the additive as an acidity regulator under proposed conditions of use would not introduce risks not already considered. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation (for its use as preservative and flavouring compound). The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of fumaric acid as an acidity regulator in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the feed additive consisting of 3‐phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CECT 13171). The additive is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive for poultry species, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for fattening. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substance used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel could not conclude on the taxonomic identification of the production strain. Moreover, the presence of viable cells of the production strain in the final formulations of the product could not be excluded. Therefore, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety for the target species, consumers, users and environment. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the characterisation of the production strain and the absence of its viable cells in the final product. Based on the data provided, the identification of CECT 13171 as K. phaffii was confirmed and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final formulations of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 3‐phytase produced with the genetically modified strain K. phaffii CECT 13171 does not give rise to any safety concern as regard to the production strain. Consequently, the additive, in both its liquid and solid formulations, is safe for the target species, consumers, users and environment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive 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 potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. 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 l‐valine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 22721) as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed. The use of l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 to irritant to the skin or eyes, a dermal or respiratory sensitiser due to the lack of data. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for users handling the additive when exposed by inhalation. The additive l‐valine produced by fermentation using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐valine for non‐ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l‐valine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of lutein‐rich extract of Tagetes erecta L. as sensory additive (functional group: Colourants (ii) substances which, when fed to animals, add colours to food of animal origin) for turkeys for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening and minor poultry for fattening and laying hens and minor poultry for laying. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta is safe for turkeys for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed use level of 80 mg total carotenoids/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use would not be of concern for the consumer, considering also its use in other poultry for fattening and for laying hens. Regarding user safety, the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta extract is irritant to skin and eyes and any exposure is considered a risk. The conclusions on user safety reached for the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta would, in principle, apply to preparations made with it. The use of the additive in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to colour the skin of turkeys for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Propionic acid is currently authorised as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicants have provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of propionic acid under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive to the skin and any exposure to users is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of diclazuril (Clinacox® 0.5%) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The additive remains safe for the target species and the consumer under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract but is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation cannot be excluded. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the environment of diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% due to lack of data. Diclazuril from Clinacox® 0.5% at a concentration of 1 mg diclazuril/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in chickens for fattening. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying. Development of resistance to diclazuril of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from chickens should be monitored.

Abstract 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 Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 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 as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.