Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel
*
18 May 2017
Submitted for public consultation
15 June 2017
End of public consultation
15 September 2017
Adopted by the FEEDAP Panel
21 February 2018
...Implementation date
1 September 2018
* Sections 3.1 and 3.2 were also endorsed by the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) and EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS) on 18 May (GMO) and 7 June (CEF and ANS) 2017.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the characterisation of microorganisms used as feed additives or as production organisms.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1389/full
The present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including ...data obtained with TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) and data from an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity (EOGRT) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO2 NPs < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO2 NPs (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO2 NPs, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico‐chemical properties of TiO2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut‐off value for TiO2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO2 NPs. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation ...of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives.
Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel
28 November 2018
Submitted for public consultation
4 December 2017
End of public consultation
28 January 2018
Adoption by the FEEDAP Panel
17 April 2018
Implementation date
1 September 2018
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1411/full
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the target species.
The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture ...should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1539/full
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the identity, characterisation and conditions of use of the additives.
l‐Glutamic acid, N,N‐diacetic acid, tetrasodium salt (GLDA‐Na4) (Kelforce®) is sought to be used as a zootechnical feed additive in chickens for fattening to improve the absorption of zinc from feed, ...reducing zinc emissions through manure and thus, affecting favourably the environment. The product has not been authorised in the European Union as a feed additive. Kelforce® is intended to be marketed as a liquid and solid formulation, containing ≥ 47% and ≥ 30% of GLDA‐Na4, respectively. Kelforce® is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum level of 1,000 mg GLDA‐Na4/kg complete feed. Based on the toxicological profile of GLDA‐Na4 and the consumer exposure to GLDA‐Na4 and to nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt (NTA‐Na3; an impurity of the additive), the use of Kelforce® at the maximum proposed level in feed of chickens for fattening is of no concern for consumer safety. Due to its low inhalation toxicity, the exposure to GLDA‐Na4 is unlikely to pose a risk by inhalation. However, owing to the high‐dusting potential of the solid formulation, a risk from such high level of dust, even if toxicologically inert, cannot be excluded. Kelforce® is not a skin/eye irritant or skin sensitiser. No risks for the terrestrial compartment were identified at the maximum use level of the additive. Risks for the aquatic compartment cannot be excluded based on the secondary effect of the additive on green algae. In the absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the sediment compartment or the possible ground water contamination. The risk of bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning caused by the additive is considered very low. Owing to the inconsistent and conflicting results from the studies assessed, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The Panel made a recommendation regarding the levels of formaldehyde and cyanide in the active substance.
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the consumer.
Sodium and potassium alginate are intended to be used as technological additives (functional groups: emulsifiers, stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agents and binders). Sodium alginate is intended to ...be used in feedingstuffs for pets, other non food‐producing animals and fish, with no maximum recommended use level. Potassium alginate is intended to be used in feedingstuffs for cats and dogs at levels up to 40,000 mg/kg feed (on dry matter). Since the functional properties of the additives are determined by the alginate content, sodium and potassium alginate were considered equivalent. The maximum dose considered safe for cats, dogs, other non food‐producing animals, salmonids and other fish is 40,000 mg alginates (sodium and potassium salts)/kg complete feed. The use of alginates in feedingstuffs for fish is of no concern for the consumer. Alginates are reported not to be irritant to the skin but mildly irritant to the eyes. They are considered as potential sensitisers to the skin and the respiratory tract. Alginates are high‐molecular‐weight polymers naturally occurring in brown algae. Their use in feedingstuffs for fish does not pose a risk for the aquatic environment. Alginates are effective as stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agent and binders. No conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of alginates as emulsifiers.
Sodium saccharin is intended to be used as a sweetener in feed and water for drinking for piglets, pigs for fattening and veal calves. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal ...Feed (FEEDAP) considers the proposed maximum use level of 150 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed as safe for calves and pigs for fattening. For piglets (sucking and weaned piglets), a lower level of 100 mg sodium saccharin/kg complete feed is considered safe. The corresponding maximum safe concentrations in water for drinking are 30 mg/L for piglets and 50 mg/L for pigs for fattening, respectively. The maximum safe concentrations of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking are derived under the premise that only one source, feed or water for drinking, contains the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that no concern for the consumer would result from the use of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking at the dose considered safe for the target species. The precautions for handling the product proposed by the applicant are considered to be sufficient to ensure user safety. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the use of sodium saccharin at the dose considered safe for target species is unlikely to have detrimental effects on the terrestrial and freshwater compartments. The high mobility and relative persistence of saccharin and the high persistency of its degradation product 4‐hydroxysaccharin indicate that groundwater contamination above 0.1 μg/L is likely to occur. Since the function of sodium saccharin in feed for the target species is essentially the same as that in food, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that no demonstration of efficacy is necessary.
PDF