Display omitted
•Compostable certified bioplastics were not compatible with the bio-waste treatment.•Bioplastics’ residues < 2 mm were found in the final composts.•Polylactic acid lowered compost pH ...and negatively affected the germination index.•Further research on the effect of starch-based bioplastics on earthworms is needed.•Compost from bio-waste treatment may be a source of environmental contamination.
Bioplastics may be collected in the bio-waste treatment, which is often composed of anaerobic digestion and subsequent aerobic composting of the digestates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the degradability of polylactic acid (PLA) and starch-based bioplastics (SBB) spoons under industrial conditions. Biomethane potential (BMP) was measured and biogas production was monitored, while the quality of composts was assessed by phytotoxicity and ecotoxicity tests. The bioplastics disintegration resulted in 65.1 ± 4.6 % for PLA and ≤ 65.0 ± 7.4 % for SBB, not achieving the target set by UNI EN 13,432 standard, and several residues were found in compost. Phytotoxicity tests on seeds reported the lowest Germination Index for PLA elutriate, whereas a potential negative effect of SBB on soil fauna was detected. Further investigation is needed to assess the fate of these ever-growing materials under industrial conditions, and also evaluate the effects of residues in compost.
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
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed an updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for food enzymes. This guidance describes the ...scientific data to be included in applications for the authorisation of food enzymes, as well as for the extension of use for existing authorisations, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and its implementing rules. Information to be provided in applications relates to source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme, toxicological data, allergenicity and dietary exposure estimation. Source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme are first considered only for enzymes of microbial origin and subsequently for those enzymes derived from plants and for enzymes from animal sources. Finally, the data requested for toxicology, allergenicity and dietary exposure applies to all food enzymes independent of the source. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of food enzymes and conclude whether or not they present a risk to human health under the proposed conditions of use.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6850/full
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
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a safety pre‐assessment within EFSA for microorganisms. Strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs) still require an assessment ...based on a specific data package, but QPS status facilitates fast track evaluation. QPS TUs are unambiguously defined biological agents assessed for the body of knowledge, their safety and their end use. Safety concerns are, where possible, to be confirmed at strain or product level, and reflected as ‘qualifications’. Qualifications need to be evaluated at strain level by the respective EFSA units. The lowest QPS TU is the species level for bacteria, yeasts and protists/algae, and the family for viruses. The QPS concept is also applicable to genetically modified microorganisms used for production purposes if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Based on the actual body of knowledge and/or an ambiguous taxonomic position, the following TUs were excluded from the QPS assessment: filamentous fungi, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and bacteriophages. The list of QPS‐recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore now becomes the valid list. For this update, reports on the safety of previously assessed microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and viruses (the latter only when used for plant protection purposes) were reviewed, following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. All TUs previously recommended for 2016 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well as their qualifications. The TUs related to the new notifications received since the 2016 QPS opinion was periodically evaluated for QPS status in the Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel, and the QPS list was also periodically updated. In total, 14 new TUs received a QPS status between 2017 and 2019: three yeasts, eight bacteria and three algae/protists.
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.
This assessment addresses a food enzyme preparation consisting of the immobilised intact but non‐viable cells of the genetically modified Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002 by CJ‐Tereos ...Sweeteners Europe SAS. The production strain produces the food enzyme d‐fructose 3‐epimerase (d‐psicose 3‐epimerase; EC 5.1.3.30). The food enzyme preparation is used in processing fructose to produce a speciality carbohydrate d‐allulose (synonym d‐psicose). Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of d‐allulose, dietary exposure was not calculated. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,796 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is low. The food enzyme preparation contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene, which is considered a hazard. However, under the specific intended conditions of use described by the applicant, and based on the evidence showing the removal of TOS during the production of d‐allulose and the absence of recombinant DNA in the d‐allulose, the Panel concluded that the identified hazard associated with the food enzyme d‐psicose 3‐epimerase produced with the genetically modified C. glutamicum strain FIS002 will not result in a risk.
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.
The presence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria in ready-to-eat foods comprises a threat for public health due to their ability to acquire and transfer antibiotic-resistant determinants that ...could settle in the microbiome of the human digestive tract. In this study,
Enterococcus faecium
UC7251 isolated from a fermented dry sausage was characterized phenotypically and genotypically to hold resistance to multiple antibiotics including aminoglycosides, macrolides, β-lactams, and tetracyclines. We further investigated this strain following a hybrid sequencing and assembly approach (short and long reads) and determined the presence of various mobile genetic elements (MGEs) responsible of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). On the chromosome of UC7251, we found one integrative and conjugative element (ICE) and a conjugative transposon Tn
916
-carrying tetracycline resistance. UC7251 carries two plasmids: one small plasmid harboring a rolling circle replication and one MDR megaplasmid. The latter was identified as mobilizable and containing a putative integrative and conjugative element-like region, prophage sequences, insertion sequences, heavy-metal resistance genes, and several antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes, confirming the phenotypic resistance characteristics. The transmissibility potential of AMR markers was observed through mating experiments, where Tn
916
-carried tetracycline resistance was transferred at intra- and inter-species levels. This work highlights the significance of constant monitoring of products of animal origin, especially RTE foodstuffs, to stimulate the development of novel strategies in the race for constraining the spread of antibiotic resistance.
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.
PDF
