Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of alpha-amylase (produced with Bacillus licheniformis DSM 34315) (Ronozyme® HiStarch) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the alpha-amylase (Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L) produced with a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 34315) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species. The additive is available in two forms, a coated thermotolerant granulate formulation and a liquid formulation. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulations. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the final product did not trigger safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel concluded that Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L is safe for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 80 KNU/kg complete feed. The use of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumers and the environment. The additive in any form was shown to be non-irritant to the skin and the solid form was shown to be non-irritant to the eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the liquid form to be irritant to the eyes or on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers due to lack of data. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive in either form was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser and any exposure by inhalation is considered a risk. In the absence of data, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of l-tyrosine for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (BCF Life Sciences).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of l-tyrosine as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c401). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, consumers, and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l-tyrosine is not an irritant to skin or eyes. In the absence of data, the potential of l-tyrosine to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser cannot be excluded. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive is likely. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and, therefore, there is no need for re-assessing the efficacy.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide for all animal species (Eusalt a.i.s.b.l.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additives, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for turkeys for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbits, horses, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additives for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys, and for all species/categories other than the above listed. In the current assessment, the applicant is proposing a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for chickens for fattening and other poultry species (except turkeys) for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and for all species/categories other than the listed above. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide are safe at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for: turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species, all ruminant species, rabbits, equines, salmonids and minor fin fish, dogs and cats. The Panel concluded also that a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride is safe for chickens for fattening and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and all other animal species.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1079 for dogs and all other Canidae (Danstar Ferment AG).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1079 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and all other Canidae. The additive is intended for use in feed for dogs and all other Canidae at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU per kg of complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and no concerns are expected from other components of the product, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Since the additive is intended to be used only in feed for dogs and other non-food-producing animals, an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment is not needed. The non-coated form of the additive was shown to be non-irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusion can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the coated form of the additive due to the lack of data. The additive in both forms, should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1079 at the proposed conditions of use.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10) for weaned piglets for the renewal of its authorisation and for its extension of use to suckling piglets (AVEVE BV).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use in weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal FEED (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for the target species, consumers and the environment, and that the extension of use to suckling piglets would not affect these conclusions. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 4000 XU and 900 BGU/kg complete feed.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS) for weaned piglets for the renewal of its authorisation and for its extension of use to suckling piglets (AVEVE BV).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS/ AveMix® 02 CS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use with weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions that the additive is safe for weaned piglets, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion applied also to the new target species (suckling piglets) for which a request for an extension of use was made. The additive in both formulations (powder and liquid) is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 2140 XU, 1230 BGU and 46 PGLU/kg complete feed.

Animal dietary exposure in the risk assessment of contaminants in feed.

EFSA performs dietary exposure assessments for food-producing and non-food-producing animals to deliver risk assessment for mandates on the presence of contaminants in feed. The CONTAM and FEEDAP Panels identified the need to update the animal dietary exposure assessment model used in those assessments in CONTAM Scientific Opinions since 2011 in cases where insufficient occurrence data are available on species specific compound feeds. The Panels proposed in this statement a series of model diets based on groups of feed materials with the possibility to use different feed materials in their formulation. The Panels considered that the currently proposed model diets cover the need of the CONTAM Panel to assess the dietary exposure of animals to contaminants in feed.

Multicenter survey about leg length discrepancy and total hip arthroplasty: preoperative and intraoperative management.

BACKGROUND: We created a multicenter survey for Italian orthopedic surgeons on how they approach leg length discrepancy (LLD) when dealing with primary total hip arthroplasty. Aim of the study was to show how surgeons manage LLD and follow the literature recommendations during clinical practice. METHODS: The survey was composed of 25 questions divided into four sections: 1-surgeon's profile, 2-preoperative and 3-intraoperative evaluation, and 4-postoperative management. In this paper, we report results to answer Sects. 1 and 2. Absolute and relative frequencies of answers to Sects. 2 and 3 are reported. We divided the participants in subgroups based on the "surgeon's profile" and evaluated difference in the answers given. RESULTS: Absolute and relative frequencies demonstrate low agreement among participants in all phases of LLD management. We demonstrated a statistically significant difference based on the surgeon's profile regarding these questions: radiographic measure of LLD depending on working experience, p = 0.008; digital planning based on surgeons' age, p < 0.001, and workplace, p = 0.026; intraoperative anatomical landmarks based on numbers of procedures per year, p = 0.020; and use of intraoperative X-rays based on working experience, p = 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: LLD is a debated topic with no definitive recommendations. Many decisions still depend on tradition and surgeons' preference.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10) for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying for the renewal of its authorisation (AVEVE BV).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as a zootechnical feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying, consumers and the environment. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in both formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Safety of a feed additive consisting of sepiolite for all animal species (Sepiol S.A. and Tolsa S.A.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener-suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe for all animal species.

Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives.

This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in preparing and presenting 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.

Scientific opinion on the characterisation of Ensifer adhaerens CGMCC 19596 used in the production of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) for all animal species (Hebei Huarong Pharmaceutical Co., ltd.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the characterisation of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 19596). The additive is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the characterisation of the production strain, due to uncertainties on whether the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 was genetically modified. However, since viable cells and DNA were not detected in the product, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), produced with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 would not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the origin and history of modifications of the strain. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the characterisation of the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596, which can be considered not to be genetically modified.

Consumer safety of feed additives containing selenium.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the consumer of products from animals fed diets with feed additives containing selenium as an active substance. Based on the limited data set available and the several uncertainties, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of organic selenium at the currently maximum authorised use level of 0.2 mg supplemented selenium from organic sources/kg complete feed (within a maximum of 0.5 mg total selenium/kg complete feed) leads to an exceedance of the UL for all the population categories (except elderly and very elderly), suggesting a concern for consumer safety. It was not possible to conclude on the safety of the currently maximum use level of 0.5 mg total selenium/kg complete feed for all consumer categories. Additional data from studies specifically designed to measure deposition of selenium in tissues and products from animal origin resulting from the use of the different sources of selenium would be required to perform a proper risk assessment.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Limosilactobacillus fermentumNCIMB 30169 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Microferm Ltd.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the 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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneriATCC PTA-6138 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the 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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneriATCC PTA-2494 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-2494 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the 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.

Techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Proximal femoral replacement due to revision hip arthroplasty or catastrophic proximal femur fracture fixation failures with considerable proximal femur bone loss can lead to a substantial loss of function of the soft tissue around the hip and the abductor muscles in particular. Surgical techniques of gluteus medius repair and/or abductor mechanism reattachment/reconstruction are widely debated in the literature, but it is quite rarely dealt with in the context of megaprosthesis and femoral reconstruction, particularly in non-oncologic patients. The aim of this study is to present a narrative review of the literature on techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently from inception until February 1st, 2023 (923 for MEDLINE and 963 for Embase; Cochrane is a composite of multiple databases and thus does not report a standard inception date). Articles examining proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis or allograft prosthesis were included. Studies concerning cadaver and oncologic patients were excluded. If the researchers failed to find an agreement on whether to include a study, the senior researcher would make a final decision in such cases. Data were extracted and stored, and qualitative synthesis was performed. Key Content and Findings: A total of 1,157 articles from MEDLINE, 11,187 articles from Embase, and 0 articles from Cochrane were identified. Of 12,344 articles, the structured screening process revealed 10 eligible trials. Four different types of abductor musculature reconstruction/reinsertion were identified. Conclusions: Multiple and complex revision hip arthroplasties as well as multiple surgical procedures for proximal femur fracture fixations failures may have a great impact on proximal femur bone stock condition and soft tissue preservation requiring the use of a proximal femur megaprosthesis. In such cases, the abductor mechanism reconstruction and/or reattachment is achievable with different techniques that can be resumed in four different groups: direct suture to the prosthesis, trochanteric sleeve osteotomy, muscle-to-muscle suture, and synthetic tube augmentation suture.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of l-cystine for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Bretagne Chimie Fine [BCF Life Sciences]).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of l-cystine as nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c391). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l-cystine is not an irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive cannot be excluded. The present application for the renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and therefore there is no need for reassessing the efficacy.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55944 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.).

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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55944 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55944 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.).

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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55943 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.