Search

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 a feed additive consisting of two bacilli strains (tradename: BioPlus® 2B) when used in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants. BioPlus® 2B is composed of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 and Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749. In the course of the current assessment, the latest strain was reclassified as Bacillus paralicheniformis. BioPlus® 2B is intended for use in feedingstuffs and water for drinking for the target species at the minimum inclusion level of 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water, respectively. B. paralicheniformis and B. subtilis are considered eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agents was established, and the qualifications regarding the lack of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, toxigenic potential and bacitracin production ability were complied with. Following the QPS approach, B. paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and B. subtilis DSM 5750 are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, BioPlus® 2B was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. BioPlus® 2B is not irritant to the eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. BioPlus® 2B when supplemented at 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water for drinking has the potential to be efficacious in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (e.g. sheep, goat, buffalo) at the same developmental stage.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of agar as a feed additive for pets and non‐food‐producing animals. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of agar for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of carrageenan as a feed additive for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals. The additive is manufactured in two forms, refined and semi‐refined carrageenan. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on safety of the additives for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder and emulsifier.

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 zearalenone hydrolase (ZenA) produced by Escherichia coli DSM 32731 when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animals. The production strain E. coli DSM 32731 is genetically modified and harbours a kanamycin resistance gene. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product, but uncertainty remains on the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product. The ZenA contained in the additive is safe for all terrestrial animal species up to the maximum use levels of (in U/kg complete feed): 100 U/kg in chickens for fattening; 150 U/kg in laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits; 200 U/kg in pigs; 250 U/kg in dairy cows; 400 U/kg in veal calf (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses and cats; and 450 U/kg in dogs. Based on the ADME and toxicological data, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the ZenA contained in the additive in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers. The endotoxin content in the additive poses a risk by inhalation for users handling the additive. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. The ZenA contained in the additive and the resulting breakdown products of its enzymatic activity do not represent a safety concern for the environment. The production strain harbours an antimicrobial resistance gene and uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its recombinant DNA in the final product; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on safety of the additive for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment.

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 selenium‐enriched yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐3060) for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised as selenomethionine produced by S. cerevisiae CNCM I‐3060 as a nutritional additive (compound of trace elements) with a minimum selenium content of 2,000 mg/kg. The applicant proposed the inclusion of an additional formulation with a minimum content of selenium in the additive of 3,000 mg/kg. Considering (i) that the main changes in the manufacturing of the product compared to the former application involve the drying phase (spray‐drying vs drum drying), which has led to slightly different values of the dusting potential and particle size, and (ii) the conditions of use already authorised, the FEEDAP Panel stated that the modification requested would only affect the safety for the target animals and the users, without impacting the safety for the consumers, safety for the environment or the efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that there are no concerns for the safety of the target animals based on its previous assessment and an additional study on homogeneity of the additive. The additive is hazardous by inhalation, is not irritant for the eyes, skin and is not a dermal sensitiser.

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 iron (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate for all animal species, brand name Availa® Fe, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 9% iron. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to include a minimum specification for free amino acids of 18%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (iron), with an inclusion level of 9–10%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2330. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of iron in the dust, it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

Abstract The specific concentrations of amprolium in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.

Abstract The specific concentrations of colistin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of colistin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

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 zinc chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa® Zn, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein with a minimum content of 10% zinc. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 17%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification of the zinc content of 10–11%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1095. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of zinc in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 26571 when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum 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 and for the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 26571 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile forage material.

Abstract The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of flumequine and oxolinic acid in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin.

Abstract The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.

Abstract The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of trimethoprim in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for trimethoprim was estimated. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for trimethoprim.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tilmicosin and tylosin, whilst for tylvalosin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these three antimicrobials.

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to assess, in collaboration with EMA, the specific concentrations of antimicrobials resulting from cross‐contamination in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in microbial agents relevant for human and animal health, as well as the levels of the antimicrobials which could have a growth promotion/increase yield effect. The assessment was performed for 24 antimicrobial active substances, as specified in the mandate. This scientific opinion describes the methodology used, and the main associated data gaps and uncertainties. To estimate the antimicrobial levels in the non‐target feed that would not result in emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance, a model was developed. This ‘Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration’ (FARSC) model is based on the minimal selective concentration (MSC), or the predicted MSC (PMSC) if MSC for the most susceptible bacterial species is unavailable, the fraction of antimicrobial dose available for exposure to microorganisms in the large intestine or rumen (considering pharmacokinetic parameters), the daily faecal output or rumen volume and the daily feed intake. Currently, lack of data prevents the establishment of PMSC and/or FARSC for several antimicrobials and animal species. To address growth promotion, data from an extensive literature search were used. Specific assessments of the different substances grouped by antimicrobial classes are addressed in separate scientific opinions. General conclusions and recommendations were made.

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 copper (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa®Cu, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 10% copper. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 18%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (copper), with an inclusion level of 10–11%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1039. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of copper in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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 manganese chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa®Mn, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 8% manganese. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 17%; and (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (manganese), with an inclusion level of 8–9%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1490. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of manganese in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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 feed additive consisting on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) CECT 8350 and Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) CECT 8700 (AQ02) for suckling piglets. The additive can be presumed safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin or eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of adequate data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of AQ02 as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling piglets.

Abstract In 2012, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of acetic acid when used as a technological additive (preservative) for all animal species. The characterisation and condition of use of the additive are the same as those already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the previous opinion on acetic acid. Acetic acid produced with the new manufacturing process complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the conclusions reached in the previous assessment apply to the acetic acid produced by the new manufacturing process. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for poultry, pigs and pet animals at a maximum concentration of 2.5 g acetic acid/kg complete feed (or 1 g/L water for drinking). The known high endogenous production of acetic acid in the ruminants shows that the tolerance of these target animals is considerably higher. No data is available for salmonids. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The risks for users handling the additive depend on the concentration and include skin, eyes, and respiratory tract irritation (10–25% solution) and corrosion (> 25% solution). The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as preservative in feedingstuffs and water for drinking. The FEEDAP Panel has some reservations about the effectiveness of acetic acid as preservative in dry feedingstuffs with a typical moisture content of ≤ 12%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium diformate (Formi™ LHS) as a technological feed additive for piglets (weaned) and pigs for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that potassium diformate is safe for weaned piglets and for pigs for fattening at the level of 6,000 mg/kg complete feed, with no margin of safety. The use of potassium diformate in weaned piglets and pigs for fattening nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. Potassium diformate does not raise concern regarding the effects on respiratory system and the skin but is an eye irritant. The use of potassium diformate as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as acidity regulator in feedingstuffs for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening at the minimum proposed concentration of 6,000 mg/kg complete 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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 12836, as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Cu) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered two opinions (in 2008 and 2009) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 18% copper, 79.5−81% (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (DL‐methionine hydroxy analogue, HMTBa) and 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process, the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 16% copper and ≥ 78% HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Mintrex®Cu is considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser; the risk of respiratory sensitisation is considered low. The present application did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive; therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the 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 authorisation of the feed additive consisting of dimethylglycine sodium salt (trade name: Taminizer D) as a zootechnical additive for chickens for fattening. In 2011, the FEEDAP Panel delivered an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive, and subsequently, the additive was authorised in the EU. In 2018, a second scientific assessment was made based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of authorisation of the additive. The additive is authorised as ‘dimethylglycine sodium salt with a purity of at least 97%’ for chickens for fattening under the category ‘zootechnical additives’ and functional group ‘other zootechnical additives (improvement of zootechnical parameters)’. The evidence provided by the applicant indicated that the additive currently in the market, produced by the two manufacturing routes, complies with the conditions of authorisation. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions in the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that Taminizer D is not a skin irritant but may be an eye irritant and a skin sensitiser; although uncertainty remains on the presence of formaldehyde, exposure is considered extremely low. There is no need to assess 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 copper chelate of ethylenediamine (Copper‐EDA‐Cl) as a feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive and, based on the information provided from an in vitro dissociation study, considered it unlikely that the additive consists only of copper mono‐chelate of EDA but of several coexisting (copper) species. Therefore, in the absence of adequate experimental data and owing to the uncertainties identified, the Panel cannot conclude on its identity and characterisation of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening and reared for laying/breeding but cannot conclude on the safety for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the consumer or the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as non‐irritant for the skin but corrosive for the eyes and a skin sensitiser. The Panel notes the uncertainties on the genotoxicity potential of the additive that might have an impact on the conclusions on the safety for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious in providing copper to meet the nutritional requirements of this trace element in all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium; KemTRACE‐Cr) as zootechnical feed additive for all growing poultry species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel was assigned to this mandate. Based on two tolerance studies submitted, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed from KemTRACE‐Cr, but a margin of safety cannot be established; this conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding, but cannot be extrapolated to other growing poultry species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition at the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer. No concerns for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive are expected; the additive was shown to be corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition according to the proposed conditions of use will not significantly alter the concentration in the receiving environmental compartments of concern; therefore, no safety concern is expected for the environment. Based on three efficacy studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that KemTRACE‐Cr has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed; this conclusion could be extended to chickens reared for laying and chickens reared for breeding, and extrapolated to other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron chelate of ethylenediamine (Iron‐EDA‐Cl) as a feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of iron monochelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (iron) species; therefore, in the absence of adequate experimental data and owing to the uncertainties identified, the Panel cannot conclude on its identity and characterisation. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for poultry for fattening and reared for laying/breeding, but cannot conclude on the safety for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the consumer or the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as non‐irritant for the skin but irritant for the eyes and skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel was assigned to this mandate. Based on the results of a tolerance study, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that ferrous lysinate sulfate is safe in chickens for fattening when used up to the current maximum authorised levels of total iron in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories, at the respective maximum authorised iron levels in complete feed. The use of ferrous lysinate sulfate in animal nutrition up to the maximum iron content in complete feed authorised in the EU poses no concern to the safety of consumers. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ferrous lysinate sulfate poses a risk to users by inhalation; the additive is not a dermal irritant, but is irritant to eyes and a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of ferrous lysinate sulfate in animal nutrition would not pose a risk for the environment. Owing to the limitations in the study provided, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for chickens for fattening, and thus, on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species and categories.

Abstract The additive tragacanth gum is intended to be used as a technological additive (category: technological additive; functional groups: emulsifier, stabiliser, thickener, gelling agent) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the characterisation and identification, the safety for the target species and the efficacy of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive tragacanth gum as a technological additive for all animal species.

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of the additive consisting of Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 (trade name: Bonvital®) as a zootechnical additive (gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening. The additive is produced in powder and granulate (microencapsulated) forms. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel confirms that the use of Bonvital® under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Bonvital® is not irritant to skin and eyes but should be considered a potential skin sensitiser and a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need to assess the efficacy of Bonvital® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusions that E. faecium DSM 7134 is compatible with the coccidiostats robenidine hydrochloride, maduramicin ammonium, diclazuril, decoquinate, halofuginone hydrobromide, monensin sodium and lasalocid A sodium.

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 Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710 (trade name: B‐Act®) when used in feed for laying hens, minor poultry species for laying and for breeding purposes and ornamental birds. B. licheniformis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established, and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes or has toxigenic potential. Following the QPS approach, B. licheniformis DSM 28710 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, B‐Act® is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but B‐Act® is considered a respiratory sensitiser. B‐Act® when supplemented at 1.6 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens. Considering also that the efficacy of the product was already shown in chickens and turkeys for fattening, the Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in minor poultry species for laying, poultry species for breeding purposes and for ornamental birds at the same inclusion level. The conclusions on the compatibility of B‐Act® with coccidiostats previously drawn apply to the current application provided that the maximum authorised concentrations of the coccidiostats for the target species are equal or lower than those for chickens.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the users of the feed additive consisting of ferric citrate chelate (CI‐FER™) when used as a zootechnical additive for suckling and weaned piglets and minor porcine species. The EC request follows a previous opinion of the FEEDAP Panel. In that opinion, the Panel identified several risks for the users of the additive; it was listed that it posed a risk to users by inhalation, should be considered as an irritant to skin, eyes and mucous membranes, and also that, due to its nickel content, should be considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The applicant provided additional data including information on the manufacturing process of the additive and data supporting the safety of the additive for the users to address those concerns. Some changes have been applied to the original manufacturing process which led to a dust‐free additive, with the following specifications: total iron ≤ 23%, iron (III) ≥ 16.5% and moisture ≤ 10.0%. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that CI‐FER™ does not pose a risk by inhalation and is classified as non‐irritant to the skin. The additive should be classified as a skin sensitiser. In the absence of new data, the FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusion that the additive should be considered irritant to eyes.

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 for target animals of manganese chelates of lysine and glutamic acid (Manganese‐LG) as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The European Commission request followed an opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2020; in that opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could conclude on the safety of the additive for chickens for fattening, but not for the rest of the target animals. The applicant submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, comprising two tolerance studies (one with chickens for fattening and one with laying hens), were the subject of this opinion. The tolerance study in laying hens was not considered for the assessment since the housing conditions of the animals were not appropriate according to the relevant EU provisions. The results of the tolerance study in chickens for fattening showed that Manganese‐LG at the highest level tested – 800 mg Mn/kg feed – is safe for these target animals. The FEEDAP Panel also considered a previous tolerance study in chickens for fattening. Taking all the evidence together the Panel concluded that Manganese‐LG is safe for chickens for fattening at 150 mg Mn/kg feed, with a margin of safety of 5.5. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species and categories provided that the maximum authorised levels in the EU for total manganese in feed are not exceeded.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zinc chelate of ethylenediamine (Zinc‐EDA‐Cl) as feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of zinc mono‐chelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (zinc) species; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to confirm the identity of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel could not evaluate the safety for target species, consumer and environment and the efficacy of the additive owing to the uncertainties and limitations identified in the studies submitted. Concerning the safety of the additive for the users, the Panel considered that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as corrosive to eyes and a skin sensitiser.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of manganese chelate of ethylenediamine (Manganese‐EDA‐Cl) as feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of manganese mono‐chelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (manganese) species; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to confirm the identity of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel could not evaluate the safety for target species, consumer and environment and the efficacy of the additive owing to the uncertainties and limitations identified in the studies submitted. Concerning the safety of the additive for the users, the Panel considered that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as corrosive to eyes and a skin sensitiser.

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 ECONASE® XT, an enzyme based on endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044. The additive is currently authorised for use in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, laying hens, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species, piglets (weaned) and pigs for fattening. ECONASE® XT is currently authorised in two forms, a solid and a liquid form with activities of 4,000,000 and 400,000 BXU/g, respectively. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential presence of recombinant DNA derived from the production organism in recent batches of the additive. The applicant has submitted data to support the absence of recombinant DNA derived from the production organism in recent product batches. The FEEDAP Panel confirms that the data provided support the absence of recombinant DNA of Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044 in the additive and thus, no safety concern was identified.

Abstract The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Zn) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered three opinions (during 2008 and 2009) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 17.5−18 % zinc, 81 % (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (dl‐methionine hydroxy analogue, HMTBa) and maximum 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process, the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 17 % zinc and ≥ 79 % HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Owing to the zinc and nickel content of Mintrex®Zn, the handling of the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation; the additive is not a skin or eye irritant but is considered a skin sensitiser. The present application did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive; therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the 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 authorisation of 6‐phytase produced by Trichoderma reeseiCBS 122001 (brand name: Finase®EC). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for poultry for fattening, breeding and laying, and all pigs, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel reiterates that the additive is not a skin or eye irritant or sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. These conclusions also apply to the new proposed liquid formulation Finase®EC 5 L.

Abstract The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Mn) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered three opinions (in 2008, 2009 and 2010) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 15.5−17 % manganese, 77−78 % (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (dl‐Methionine Hydroxy Analogue, HMTBa) and maximum 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 14 % manganese and ≥ 76 % HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Owing to the manganese and nickel content of Mintrex®Mn, the handling of the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation; the additive is not a skin or eye irritant but is considered as a skin sensitiser. The present application did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive; therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, 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 Correlink™ ABS747 Bacillus subtilis (hereafter designated as Correlink™ ABS747) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding and minor growing poultry species. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus subtilis, which in the course of the current assessment, was reclassified as Bacillus velezensis NRRL B‐67257. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, lacks toxigenic potential and does not have the capacity to produce aminoglycosides. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment, B. velezensis NRRL B‐67257 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, Correlink™ ABS747 is also considered safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Correlink™ ABS747 is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser but is a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Correlink™ ABS747 for the target species due to lack of data.

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 renewal of the authorisation of Bacillus subtilisPB6, the extension of use to ornamental, sporting and game birds and a modification on the concentration of the said additive. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus subtilis. During the course of the current assessment, the active agent has been redesignated as Bacillus velezensisATCC PTA‐6737. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent is established and the compliance with the other qualifications confirmed. Therefore, B. velezensisATCC PTA‐6737 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. The additive is not a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is unlikely. In the previous assessments performed by the FEEDAP Panel, the additive showed to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in feedingstuffs for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg. Considering that efficacy at the same level has been shown, this conclusion is extrapolated to ornamental, sporting and gaming 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 the safety and efficacy of Correlink™ ABS1781 Bacillus subtilis (hereafter designated as Correlink™ ABS1781) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding and minor growing poultry species. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus subtilis, which in the course of the current assessment, was reclassified as Bacillus velezensisNRRL B‐67259. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, lacks toxigenic potential and does not have the capacity to produce aminoglycosides. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment, B. velezensisNRRL B‐67259 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, Correlink™ ABS1781 is also considered safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and the environment. Correlink™ ABS1781 is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser but is a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Correlink™ ABS1781 for the target species due to lack of data.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 when used as a technological additive intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. parafarraginis 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 an eye or dermal irritant but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. Three studies with laboratory‐scale silos were made using samples of easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage. In each case, replicate silos containing untreated forage were compared with identical silos containing the same forage to which Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 was added to reach an intended concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh matter. The results showed that the addition of the additive improves significantly the aerobic stability of the silage tested.

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 fumonisin esterase from Komagataella phaffii DSM 32159 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The product has been already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel for use in pigs and poultry feed as technological additive and was granted with an authorisation in the EU for this use. In the current application, the additive is intended to be used in fermenting feeds with the purpose to reduce the contamination of feed by fumonisins. New data provided showed that no recombinant DNA could be detected in three batches of the product. The evidence provided – based on the data submitted in the previous and the current application – allowed the FEEDAP Panel to conclude that the additive is safe for the target animals under the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also considered valid the previous conclusions in which the safety of the additive for consumers and the environment was established. The additive is not toxic by inhalation and the respiratory exposure is likely to be low; however, a risk of sensitisation via the respiratory route cannot be excluded. The additive is non‐irritant to skin and eyes and is not considered as a dermal sensitiser. The additive has the capacity to degrade fumonisins in fermenting feed (with a fumonisin content within the guidance limits operating in the EU) when used at the minimum recommended dose of 40 U/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel notes that the efficacy has been demonstrated only in silages, not in other fermenting feeds like e.g. liquid feeds.

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 iron chelates of lysine and glutamic acid (Iron‐LG) as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The European Commission request followed an opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2019; in that opinion the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The applicant submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, related to the efficacy of the additive, are the subject of this opinion. Three studies were provided, one each with weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and laying hens. In the study in laying hens, improvements in iron content in egg yolk, iron in serum and in other iron‐related blood endpoints were observed. Based on the results of this study, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is a source of bioavailable iron, comparable to the standard inorganic iron source, and therefore, the additive is efficacious in meeting the animals’ requirements; the results of the study in pigs for fattening supported the bioavailability of Iron‐LG. The conclusion drawn by the Panel could be extrapolated to all animal species and categories.