Zobrazení zdroje stránky Bachmannmcnamara8571

hibisci, as individuals may remain attached to the roots. There have been interceptions of R. hibisci in the EU, usually on artificially dwarfed plants, i.e. bonsai/penjing. Findings in EU greenhouses have been eradicated. R. hibisci would be able to establish in the EU, greenhouse potted plant production would be most affected. Phytosanitary measures are available to lower the likelihood of introduction. R. hibisci satisfies the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for it to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest. R. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/cbr-470-1.html CBR-470-1 mw] hibisci does not meet the criterion of occurring in the EU for it to be regarded as a potential Union regulated non-quarantine pest.Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.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 l-tryptophan produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 11674 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion in 2019 in which they could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target animals and for the consumer due to tryptophan-related impurities such as 1,1'-ethylidene-bis-l-tryptophan (EBT). The applicant submitted additional data and the European Commission (EC) has requested EFSA to deliver a new opinion on the safety of the additive under assessment. The manufacturing process has been adjusted to reduce the amount of tryptophan-related impurities and the analysis of three new batches of the additive indicated that levels of EBT and 1-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carboline-3-carboxylic acid (MTCA) represent no safety concerns for the target species or for the consumer.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 Actisaf® Sc 47 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407) as a zootechnical additive for calves for rearing. The applicant has 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 calves for rearing, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is not a skin or eye irritant. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal sensitisation potential of the additive. Inhalation exposure is unlikely. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did 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.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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 16244 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did 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.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 Axtra® XAP 104 TPT as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancers) for poultry species. The additive contains three enzyme activities (endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, protease and alpha-amylase) produced by three different genetically modified strains. Viable cells and recombinant DNA of the strains producing the protease and amylase were not detected in the final product. Owing to the insufficient data, uncertainty remained on the presence in the additive of viable cells of the strain producing the xylanase. The results obtained in the genotoxicity and subchronic oral toxicity studies performed with the three fermentation products did not indicate safety concerns resulting from the fermentation products used in the formulation/manufacturing. However, uncertainties remain on the suitability of the test item used in the studies conducted with the xylanase; therefore, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the toxicological potential of AXTRA ® XAP 104 TPT.