Efficacy of a feed additive consisting of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species (Phytobiotis Futterzusatzstoffe GmbH).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate (Plexomin® L-Fe) for all animal species. The additive has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union (EU). The safety of the additive for the target species, consumer, user and the environment has already been assessed in previous opinions. However, the efficacy remained inconclusive due to the absence of evidence of the bioavailability of the iron contained in the additive in the trials submitted either with chickens for fattening or with weaned piglets. For the present assessment, the applicant submitted a recalculation of the previous data on weaned piglets, which did not show evidence of bioavailability. Therefore, in the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of muramidase produced with Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338 (Balancius™) for laying hens (DSM nutritional products).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of muramidase produced with Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338 (Balancius™) as a feed additive for laying hens. The additive is already authorised as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for chickens, turkeys and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for breeding, and for weaned piglets. The enzyme is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei; viable cells of the production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not give rise to safety concerns regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. Based on the data available from a sub-chronic oral toxicity study, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for laying hens at the maximum recommended level of 60,000 LSU(F) (muramidase activity units)/kg feed. The Panel also concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers and the environment. The liquid formulation of the additive is considered not irritant to the skin or eyes. The solid formulation of the additive is considered not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive (both formulations) to be a dermal sensitiser or on the potential of the solid formulation to be irritant to the eyes. Due to the proteinaceous nature, both forms of the additive should be considered respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for laying hens at 30,000 LSU(F)/kg feed.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 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 authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 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 terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation 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 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.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC PTA-6139 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 PTA-6139 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 PTA-6139 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 DSM 18112 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) DSM 18112 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 DSM 18112 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 DSM 18114 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) DSM 18114 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 DSM 18114 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 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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 6-phytase produced with Trichoderma reesei (CBS 126897) (Quantum® Blue) for fin fish (ROAL Oy).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6-phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DSM 34246 (Canobios-BL) for cats and dogs (ACEL pharma s.r.l.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DSM 34246 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and cats. The additive, with the trade name Canobios-BL, is intended for use in feed for cats and dogs at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 5 × 109 CFU/kg 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 the additive is composed by dried cells of the active agent and an emulsifier, that are not expected to introduce any risk, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Canobios-BL is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Canobios-BL is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for dogs and cats at the use level 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed.

Efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Talaromyces versatilis IMI 378536 and DSM 26702 (ROVABIO® ADVANCE) for weaned piglets (Adisseo France SAS).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE (liquid and solid) which contains endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Talaromyces versatilis IMI 378536 and DSM 26702 as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at the recommended use level of 1800 U xylanase and 1250 U glucanase per kg feed. In a previous assessment, three long-term trials in weaned piglets were submitted. Two of them were considered to support the efficacy of the additive while a third trial was not further considered due to the large number of veterinary treatments applied. A new trial was provided to support the efficacy of the additive, but it did not show a significant improvement of the performance parameters at the minimum recommended use level. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for the target species.

Safety of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-ß-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 143953), subtilisin (produced with Bacillus subtilis CBS 143946) and α-amylase (produced with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CBS 143954) (Avizyme® 1505) for all poultry species (Danisco (UK) Ltd.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-ß-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 143953), subtilisin (produced with Bacillus subtilis CBS 143946) and α-amylase (produced with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CBS 143954) (Avizyme® 1505) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species. The additive is authorised in feed for chickens and turkeys for fattening, ducks and laying hens. In 2020, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation, a reduction of the minimum recommended level in turkeys for fattening and the extension of use to all poultry species. In that assessment, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive due to uncertainties on the characterisation of the production strains and the possible presence of their viable cells and DNA in the final product. Moreover, limitations were identified in the xylanase specifications and xylanase method of analysis. The applicant submitted information to address the limitations previously identified. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. The use of Avizyme® 1505 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive is a mild irritant to skin and eyes; it is not a dermal sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is efficacious in ducks at 75 U endo-1,4-ß-xylanase, 1000 U subtilisin and 100 U α-amylase/kg of complete feed. In other poultry species for fattening (including turkeys), reared for breeding and reared for laying, the additive is efficacious at 187.5 U endo-1,4-ß-xylanase, 2500 U subtilisin and 250 U α-amylase per kg of complete feed and at 300 U endo-1,4-ß-xylanase, 4000 U subtilisin and 400 U α-amylase per kg of complete feed for all poultry species for laying (except for ducks).

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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18113 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) DSM 18113 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 DSM 18113 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.

Efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DBVPG 48 SF (BioCell®) for ruminants (Mazzoleni S.p.A.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DBVPG 48 SF (BioCell®) as a zootechnical feed additive for horses, pigs and ruminants. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the proposed conditions of use for horses, dairy ruminants and all pigs. However, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of BioCell® for calves, and, consequently, for other ruminants for fattening or rearing. The applicant provided three additional efficacy trials in veal calves to support the efficacy of BioCell® for ruminants for fattening or rearing. The three studies showed positive effects of the supplementation with the additive at 1.7 × 109 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feed on the performance of veal calves. Considering the previously submitted studies in dairy cows and the new submitted trials, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious for all ruminants at the proposed condition of use: 4.0 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed for dairy ruminants and 4.0 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for ruminants for fattening and rearing.

Efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 (Actisaf® Sc47) for cattle for fattening (Lesaffre International).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 (Actisaf® Sc47) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in cattle for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for dairy cows, calves for rearing, lambs for fattening, dairy goats, dairy sheep and dairy buffaloes. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) concluded that Actisaf® Sc47 was safe for cattle for fattening, the consumers and the environment. Additionally, the Panel considered that Actisaf® Sc47 is not a skin irritant, and no conclusions could be drawn on the additive's eye irritancy and dermal sensitisation potential. Due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use. In the current application, the applicant submitted three trials to support the efficacy in cattle for fattening. However, two of them were not considered for the assessment. The other trial showed an improved zootechnical performance of the animals at the proposed use level of 4 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. Considering the additive is authorised in dairy cows and calves for rearing and the requirements of the current Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary to extrapolate the conclusions previously reached to all ruminants. The significant positive effect shown in one trial in cattle for fattening supports the above extrapolation. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Actisaf® Sc47 is efficacious as a zootechnical additive for cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.