Search

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

The processes in polymer films based on polypropylene containing fluorinated additives during modification of films in corona discharge plasma are studied. The chemical composition, relief, adhesion and deformation properties of the film surface before and after modification in plasma were studied using the methods of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy. It has been established that in films under the influence of corona discharge plasma migration of the fluoropolymer additive to the surface occurs. In this case, the chemical composition and structure of the film changes, and local structures containing oxygen, fluorine and carbon atoms are formed on the surface. Local structures have an electrical resistance that is different from the electrical resistance of the surface of the original film. Plasma modification leads to an improvement in the elastic and adhesive properties of the polypropylene film surface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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 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 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.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of propyl gallate as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on a safe level of propyl gallate for cats and on the safety for the consumer. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that propyl gallate at a maximum concentration of 71 mg/kg complete feed is safe for cats. Propyl gallate is considered safe for the consumer when used in complete feed for all animal species at the concentrations considered safe for the target species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Over the past decade, the flour milling industry has been undergoing active development, with the reconstruction of existing enterprises and increased construction of new flour mills under conditions of declining quality of incoming raw materials, high competition and low profitability of bakery enterprises and flour mills. Therefore, such enterprises should be able to produce not only standard flour but also flour with specified quality indicators. One example is flour with enhanced baking properties intended for special product groups such as loaves, baguettes, buns, etc. Standard Ukrainian flour, produced due to its low protein and gluten content, cannot always be used for these products. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of a protease-acting enzyme preparation on the gluten network of flour and to develop a complex-acting technological additive. To study the quality of flour, both conventional and innovative evaluation methods were used with the help of the Mixolab device, and trial laboratory baking of samples was carried out. To improve the protein-proteinase complex, the enzyme preparation Neutrase 15 BG was used in three dosages: minimum (0.02 g/kg), medium (0.06 g/kg) and maximum (0.1 g/kg). For complex action, a mixture of enzyme preparations Neutrase 15 BG and Fungamyl 2500 SG in the following dosages: 0.02 g/kg + 0.002 g/kg; 0.02 g/kg + 0.005 g/kg; 0.02 g/kg + 0.01 g/kg. The paper analyses the quality of flour produced by Ukrainian producers, determines the effect of a proteolytic enzyme on the quality characteristics of gluten, evaluates the baking properties of graded flour with a proteolytic enzyme, and develops a technological additive to adjust the protein-proteinase complex of flour. The analysis of previous studies has shown that high-grade flour from the Southern region is characterised by low quality, namely a low gluten content of 24.0-25.2% with excessively resistant gluten properties of 47-60 units, and low amylolytic activity – the falling number is above 460-480 s. It has been established that at the minimum and average dosage of Neutrase 15 BG, the specific volume of bread increased by 0.5% and at the maximum – by 0.2%, with a clear deterioration in organoleptic characteristics. Therefore, it makes sense to use this enzyme in low dosages to prevent stickiness of the dough. According to the results of the influence of the technological additive on bread quality indicators, it has been found that in the sample with the following dosage of Neutrase 15 BG and Fungamyl 2500 SG – 0.02 g/kg + 0.01 g/kg, respectively, the volume and porosity of bread increased by 1.3 times and 1.1 times, respectively.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of propyl gallate as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumer and on a safe level of propyl gallate for cats. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that propyl gallate at a maximum concentration of 71 mg/kg complete feed is safe for cats. The FEEDAP Panel extrapolated the conclusions on the safety for the target species reached in its previous assessment to other physiologically related species and to all other animal species. Propyl gallate is considered safe for the consumer when used in complete feed for all animal species at the concentrations considered safe for the target species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, 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 is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, 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 is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of three additives consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573, respectively, as technological additives to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additives currently on the market comply with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives are not irritant to skin or eyes, but owing to their proteinaceous nature they should be considered respiratory sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additives. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The additive is 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. buchneri is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material with a dry matter content ranging from 28% to 45%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 23375, 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 is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive L. plantarum DSM 23375 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested ■■■■■. It should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator) in feed for horses, dogs, cats and pet rabbits. The additive is intended to be incorporated into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) at a minimum inclusion level of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg of the feed material under scope. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of this strain in animal nutrition is safe for the target species, consumers of horse meat and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested containing maltodextrin and oat bran as carriers, but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that incorporation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 at a minimum concentration of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) has the potential to reduce the pH of these feedingstuffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of lignosulphonate, when used as a technological additive (functional group: binders) in feed for all animal species. In two previous assessments, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the maximum level proposed of 10,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is safe for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, laying hens and cattle for fattening, but a margin of safety could not be identified. Consequently, these conclusions could not be extrapolated to other animal species/categories. In the current application, the applicant proposed to reduce the maximum content of lignosulphonate in feed for all animal species to 8,000 mg/kg complete feed. The results of two newly submitted tolerance studies allowed the Panel to conclude that 8,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is also safe for dairy cows and salmonids, with a margin of safety of at least 1.25. Considering the results of the studies previously assessed and those of the two new tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that lignosulphonate is safe for all animal species when used at a maximum content of 8,000 mg/kg complete feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of three additives consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573, respectively, as technological additives to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additives currently on the market comply with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives are not irritant to skin or eyes, but owing to their proteinaceous nature they should be considered respiratory sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additives. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisations.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 23375, 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 is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive L. plantarum DSM 23375 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested ■■■■■. It should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The additive is 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. buchneri is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material with a dry matter content ranging from 28% to 45%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator) in feed for horses, dogs, cats and pet rabbits. The additive is intended to be incorporated into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) at a minimum inclusion level of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg of the feed material under scope. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of this strain in animal nutrition is safe for the target species, consumers of horse meat and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested containing maltodextrin and oat bran as carriers, but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that incorporation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 at a minimum concentration of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) has the potential to reduce the pH of these feedingstuffs.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of lignosulphonate, when used as a technological additive (functional group: binders) in feed for all animal species. In two previous assessments, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the maximum level proposed of 10,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is safe for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, laying hens and cattle for fattening, but a margin of safety could not be identified. Consequently, these conclusions could not be extrapolated to other animal species/categories. In the current application, the applicant proposed to reduce the maximum content of lignosulphonate in feed for all animal species to 8,000 mg/kg complete feed. The results of two newly submitted tolerance studies allowed the Panel to conclude that 8,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is also safe for dairy cows and salmonids, with a margin of safety of at least 1.25. Considering the results of the studies previously assessed and those of the two new tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that lignosulphonate is safe for all animal species when used at a maximum content of 8,000 mg/kg complete feed.

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

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376, as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I‐3699 intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) in forage for all species. In a previous opinion, the additive was described as containing viable but not cultivable cells of the two strains in a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of total lactic acid bacteria counts of 5 × 108 Viable Forming Units (VFU)/g additive. However, in that opinion the Panel could not fully characterise the additive or conclude on its dermal/ocular irritancy or sensitisation potential. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these gaps. The proposed methodology to discriminate and individually quantify the two strains composing the additive still presented limitations. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the data available do not allow to fully characterise the additive. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the taxonomical identification of the strain CNCM I‐3699, and consequently, on its eligibility for the application of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. Therefore, the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive based on the QPS approach could not be confirmed. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel reiterated its previous conclusions that no conclusions can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive to improve the ensiling process of forage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]