Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 123
Filtrar
1.
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) ; 103(1): 221-230, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30280433

RESUMEN

The influence of medium-chain glycerides on performance and gastrointestinal well-being in weaning piglets was assessed. First, caproic (C6), caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) acid activity against Escherichia coli was screened in vitro. Pig flora of the whole small intestine was used as inoculum. Seven in vitro incubations were done in duplicate at pH = 3 and 5: C10 (15 mM), C8 (12 mM), C6 (15, 12, 10 mM), a non-incubated-negative control and incubated negative control. Culture suspensions were plated on E. coli-selective agar. Controls showed bacterial growth. C6 and C8 showed no growth at both pH-values, where C10 showed growth at pH = 5. Secondly, an in vivo study was done with 80 weaned piglets over 42 days, housed in pens of eight animals (five pens/treatment), fed a basal diet containing broken rice/soya bean meal/fish meal and supplemented with C6 and C8 in medium-chain glyceride form (MCT6/8, 0.175%) or antibiotic growth promoter (AGP, 0.020%) (Kasetsart University, Thailand) serving as control. Feed intake, daily gain and feed-to-gain ratio did not differ between MCT6/8 and AGP. Per replicate, two random selected piglets were challenged intravenously with E. coli-lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or saline solution (S) at Days 21 and 28. All challenged animals were sacrificed; blood and digestive tract samples (jejunum/ileum) were collected at Day 35. LPS challenge consistently reduced villus height and crypt depth for MCT6/8 and AGP. However, LPS-challenged piglets supplemented with MCT6/8 restored villus height, where AGP did not. MCT6/8 piglets had higher serum IgA, more jejunal IgA-positive plasma cells and goblet cells than AGP. At the ileal level, results were similar, though less pronounced. The present study offers new insight in the benefits of MCT6/8 over AGP in the post-weaning period. There is in vitro anti-microbial action of C6 and C8 on E. coli. In vivo, MCT6/8 also has protective effects in the small intestine that may result in growth promotion.


Asunto(s)
Escherichia coli , Ácidos Grasos/metabolismo , Glicéridos/farmacología , Células Caliciformes/efectos de los fármacos , Intestino Delgado/efectos de los fármacos , Porcinos , Alimentación Animal/análisis , Fenómenos Fisiológicos Nutricionales de los Animales , Animales , Dieta/veterinaria , Digestión/fisiología , Inmunoglobulina A/sangre , Intestino Delgado/microbiología , Intestino Delgado/fisiología , Lipopolisacáridos/toxicidad , Distribución Aleatoria
2.
Environ Health ; 15: 5, 2016 Jan 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26768246

RESUMEN

Increasingly, feed additives for livestock, such as amino acids and vitamins, are being produced by Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli. The potential therefore exists for animals, consumers and workers to be exposed to possibly harmful amounts of endotoxin from these products. The aim of this review was to assess the extent of the risk from endotoxins in feed additives and to calculate how such risk can be assessed from the properties of the additive. Livestock are frequently exposed to a relatively high content of endotoxin in the diet: no additional hazard to livestock would be anticipated if the endotoxin concentration of the feed additive falls in the same range as feedstuffs. Consumer exposure will be unaffected by the consumption of food derived from animals receiving endotoxin-containing feed, because the small concentrations of endotoxin absorbed do not accumulate in edible tissues. In contrast, workers processing a dusty additive may be exposed to hazardous amounts of endotoxin even if the endotoxin concentration of the product is low. A calculation method is proposed to compare the potential risk to the worker, based on the dusting potential, the endotoxin concentration and technical guidance of the European Food Safety Authority, with national exposure limits.


Asunto(s)
Contaminantes Ocupacionales del Aire/envenenamiento , Endotoxinas/envenenamiento , Escherichia coli , Aditivos Alimentarios/envenenamiento , Ganado , Enfermedades de los Trabajadores Agrícolas/inducido químicamente , Alimentación Animal/envenenamiento , Animales , Endotoxinas/química , Industria de Procesamiento de Alimentos , Humanos , Exposición Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Medición de Riesgo
3.
EFSA J ; 22(5): e8795, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38751505

RESUMEN

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.

4.
EFSA J ; 22(3): e8663, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38469362

RESUMEN

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 and efficacy of 6-phytase produced by the genetically modified strain Aspergillus oryzae DSM 33737 (HiPhorius™ 10, 40, 20L and 50L) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry, all Suidae and all fin fish. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry, all Suidae and all fin fish at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the consumers and the environment. The liquid formulations of the additive are not skin or eye irritants. The two solid ones are not skin irritants but are eye irritants. Owing to the lack of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation of the final formulations of the additive. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance (6-phytase), the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious when included in the diet of poultry for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, reproductive Suidae, and all fin fish. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy for laying and reproductive poultry and growing Suidae.

5.
EFSA J ; 22(2): e8579, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38344710

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo-1,4-ß-xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii ATCC PTA-127053 (Xygest™ HT) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for all Suidae at a recommended minimum level of 90,000 U/kg complete feed for pigs in the growing period and 45,000 U/kg complete feed for sows. The production strain is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe at the minimum recommended use level for all growing Suidae and all sows in the lactating phase. Xygest™ HT was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment when used in feed for all Suidae. The additive was considered not to be irritant to eyes and skin, but was considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Xygest™ HT for all Suidae.

6.
EFSA J ; 22(5): e8793, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38774115

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Macleaya cordata (Willd.) R. Br. extract and leaves (Sangrovit® Extra) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. The additive is standardised to contain a concentration of the sum of the four alkaloids sanguinarine, chelerythrine, protopine and allocryptopine of 1.25%, with 0.5% sanguinarine. Owing to the presence of the DNA intercalators sanguinarine and chelerythrine, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns for the target species when the additive is used at the recommended level of 0.750 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. Since in all consumer categories the exposure to sanguinarine and chelerythrine via the use of Sangrovit® Extra exceeds the threshold of toxicological concern of 0.0025 µg/kg bw per day for DNA reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumers. The additive was shown to be irritant to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential of the additive to be a respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to sanguinarine and chelerythrine may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of users should be reduced. The use of Sangrovit® Extra as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for the environment. The additive Sangrovit® Extra had the potential to be efficacious in improving performance of weaned piglets at 0.600 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae.

7.
EFSA J ; 21(6): e07862, 2023 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37396874

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) CECT 8350 and Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) CECT 8700 (AQ02) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling piglets. In a previous opinion the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for the target species, the consumer, and the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser but could not conclude on the skin/eye irritation potential or on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel previously could not conclude on the efficacy of AQ02. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive in suckling piglets. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

8.
EFSA J ; 21(7): e08166, 2023 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37522097

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively. The additives are intended for use with all types of fresh materials and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 107 colony forming units (CFU) of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg forage or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg forage. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy since the dry matter content of the ensiled materials at the end of the experiments was not corrected for volatiles, which led to an unreliable estimation of the dry matter loss, and the lack of positive effects on any of the other parameters. The supplementary information submitted by the applicant included updated data on the pH values and the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. However, the estimation of the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles was wrongly calculated and thus, was not considered for the assessment of the efficacy of the additive. Considering the lack of effect on any other fermentation parameter, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive to improve the production of silage under the proposed conditions of use.

9.
EFSA J ; 21(7): e08176, 2023 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37522098

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of acetic acid, calcium acetate and sodium diacetate as technological feed additives (preservatives) for salmonids/fish. The additives are already authorised for use for all animal species other than fish. In previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that a maximum concentration of 2,500 mg acetic acid/kg complete feed (or 1,000 mg/L water for drinking) was safe for poultry, pigs and pet animals. Ruminants were considered to exhibit a higher tolerance. Due to lack of data for salmonids, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of acetic acid and its salts for fish. The applicant has provided supplementary information consisting in a tolerance study in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and a literature search to support the safety of acetic acid in fish. Considering all the available information, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that acetic acid (and its salts by analogy) is considered safe for fish up to the maximum recommended supplementation level of 2,500 mg acetic acid/kg complete feed.

10.
EFSA J ; 21(3): e07879, 2023 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37009446

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a pancreatic extract (Pan-zoot) as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of Pan-Zoot as a feed additive for dogs under the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin/eye irritancy potential of the additive or on the dermal sensitisation potential. Owing to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive may induce allergic reactions to the exposed users. The Panel concluded that there is no need for an environmental risk assessment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product as a feed additive at the recommended conditions of use.

11.
EFSA J ; 21(1): e07713, 2023 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36698489

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 27 compounds to provide a milky-vanilla flavour belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fifteen of the 27 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10-fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 15 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 12 compounds, read-across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 12 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the 27 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 5-methylhept-2-en-4-one [07.139], 5-methylfurfural [13.001] and 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [07.024]. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds.

12.
EFSA J ; 21(11): e08343, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38027428

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis FERM BP-07462, Enterococcus lactis FERM BP-10867 and Clostridium butyricum FERM BP-10866 (BIO-THREE®) as a zootechnical feed additive to be used as a gut flora stabiliser for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of BIO-THREE® for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. The applicant has provided a new study in chickens for fattening as supplementary information to support the efficacy of BIO-THREE® for the target species. Considering the previously submitted studies and the new submitted trial, the Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding under the proposed conditions of use.

13.
EFSA J ; 21(2): e07816, 2023 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36818641

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei ATCC PTA-5588, protease produced by Bacillus subtilis CBS 148232, and alpha-amylase produced by Bacillus licheniformis ATCC SD-6525, Axtra® XAP 104 TPT, for chickens for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. In the previous assessment, a series of shortcomings did not allow to conclude on the safety of the product. The shortcomings included uncertainty on the presence of viable cells of one of the production strains; uncertainty on the identity of the production strains of the ■■■■■ used in the manufacturing process of the protease and their presence in the final additive; and uncertainty about the test item used for the toxicological testing of the xylanase. Moreover, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy in laying hens. The applicant submitted some new information to address some of the limitations previously identified. Moreover, the applicant declared a change in the production strain of the protease, substituting B. subtilis ATCC SD-2107 for B. subtilis CBS 148232. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species at the recommended use level (1,000 xylanase U, 100 amylase U and 2,000 protease U per kg feed). The additive is safe for the consumers of food products obtained from animals fed with the additive and raises no concerns for the environment. The Panel could not conclude on the skin/eye irritancy potential of the additive nor on its dermal sensitisation potential. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is efficacious in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species up to the point of lay at the level of 2,000 xylanase U, 200 amylase U and 4,000 protease U per kg feed (double the minimum recommended use level). Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for laying hens.

14.
EFSA J ; 21(4): e07971, 2023 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37089174

RESUMEN

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. The product, manufactured in three formulations (microsphere, micropellet and powder), is intended for use in complete feed at a minimum inclusion level of 3 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for horses, 4 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed for dairy cows and minor dairy species, 4 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for calves, cattle for fattening, minor growing and fattening ruminants, piglets and pigs for fattening and minor porcine species and 6 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for sows and minor porcine species for reproduction. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was conclusively established and, therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. The additive, in any formulation, is not irritant to the eyes and skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel 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 the additive for calves, and neither for cattle for fattening, minor growing and fattening ruminants.

15.
EFSA J ; 21(10): e08340, 2023 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37886609

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10-fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read-across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.

16.
EFSA J ; 21(12): e8468, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38099055

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non-irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species.

17.
EFSA J ; 21(1): e07696, 2023 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36643906

RESUMEN

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 authorisation of ammonium chloride (Amoklor™) as a zootechnical additive for all ruminants, dogs and cats and its extension of use in sows for urinary health. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in 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 ruminants other than lambs for fattening, lambs for fattening, cats and dogs, consumers and the environment under the current authorised conditions of use. Inhalation exposure of the additive is considered very likely. Amoklor™ should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser but not a skin sensitiser. The additive is not irritant to the skin, but the Panel could not conclude on its eye irritation potential. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. Regarding the extension of use in sows, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe and efficacious for sows at the inclusion level of 5,000 mg/kg feedingstuffs from week 9th to 11th of gestation and from week 15th of gestation to 1st of lactation.

18.
EFSA J ; 20(5): e07251, 2022 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35582368

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE (liquid and solid) which contains endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase. The enzymes present in the additive are produced by two strains of Talaromyces versatilis, one of them genetically modified. The additive is intended to be used as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. Viable cells of the production strains and DNA of the genetically modified strain were not detected in the fermentation product used to formulate the additive. Based on the results of a tolerance trial in weaned piglets, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that ROVABIO® ADVANCE is safe for weaned piglets under the recommended conditions of use. This conclusion was extended to pigs for fattening. Based on the outcome of the toxicological studies performed, the Panel concluded that the additive is of no concern regarding consumer safety. ROVABIO® ADVANCE is not irritant to the skin or eyes but it is a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No risks to the environment are expected from the use of the additive in animal nutrition. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE.

19.
EFSA J ; 20(6): e07343, 2022 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35686179

RESUMEN

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6-phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.19) (Nutrase P) for chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds. The additive is available in solid (Nutrase PD 100,000, Nutrase PG 10,000 and Nutrase PTS 10,000) and liquid (Nutrase PL 10,000) forms. In 2020, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product and concluded that uncertainties remained on the presence of viable cells and recombinant DNA of the production strain in two of the formulations (Nutrase PL 10,000 and Nutrase PD 100,000). Moreover, the Panel could not conclude on the safety and the efficacy of the additive for the target species at the recommended level of 250 FTU/kg complete feed. The applicant provided supplementary information to address the limitations identified in that assessment and requested to increase the minimum recommended use level to 500 FTU/kg complete feed. No viable cells and recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in Nutrase PL 10,000 and Nutrase PD 100,000. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive, in any formulations, does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. Based on the results of a new tolerance trial, the Panel concluded that Nutrase P is safe for the target species. The additive in any formulation is safe for the consumers and the environment, but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Considering the two long-term trials in chickens for fattening previously evaluated and the new trial submitted, the Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in chickens for fattening, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds at 1,500 FTU/kg complete feed.

20.
EFSA J ; 20(4): e07255, 2022 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35497378

RESUMEN

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 the feed additive consisting of ammonium chloride (tradename: Ammonium chloride AF) as a zootechnical additive for ruminants, cats and dogs. In 2012, the FEEDAP Panel delivered an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive and subsequently the additive was authorised in the EU. The additive is authorised as 'ammonium chloride with a content of ammonium chloride ≥ 99% and sodium chloride ≤ 0.5% in the active substance' for ruminants, cats and dogs under the category 'zootechnical additives' and functional group 'other zootechnical additives'. The evidence provided by the applicant indicates that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsider its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that ammonium chloride is considered an eye and skin irritant and a potential respiratory sensitiser, but is not a dermal sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda