Midtgaardarmstrong1873

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 Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 29026 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony-forming units (CFU)/kg forage if used alone, or 5 × 107 CFU/kg forage if used in combination with other authorised microorganisms. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by the EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or skin sensitiser. Crenolanib Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 29026 at a minimum concentration of 5 × 107 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage material.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 safety and efficacy of TechnoSpore® (Bacillus coagulans DSM 32016), when used as a zootechnical additive for piglets (suckling and weaned), other growing Suidae, chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening and ornamental birds. The bacterial species present in the additive is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established and the lack of toxigenic potential confirmed. B. coagulans DSM 32016 did not show resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, and therefore, was presumed safe for the target species, consumers of products derived from animals Fed the additive and the environment. Since the other components of the additive did not give rise to concerns, TechnoSpore® was also considered safe for the target species, consumer and the environment. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. TechnoSpore® showed the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in weaned piglets and chickens for fattening at 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae at the same physiological stage and to other birds for fattening and ornamental birds at the same use level. B. coagulans DSM 32016 included in Technospore® is compatible with halofuginone and diclazuril. The Panel could not conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, decoquinate, robenidine hydrochloride, lasalocid sodium, narasin, salinomycin sodium, maduramicin ammonium, nicarbazin and narasin/nicarbazin.According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance meptyldinocap (DE-126). To assess the occurrence of meptyldinocap residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 and the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as well as the European authorisations reported by Member States (including the supporting residues data). Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Although no apparent risk to consumers was identified, some information required by the regulatory framework was missing. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only and some MRL proposals derived by EFSA still requires further consideration by risk managers.In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant Du Pont (UK) submitted a request to the competent national authority in the United Kingdom to set an import tolerance for the active substance oxathiapiprolin in various crops in support of authorised uses in the United States. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive maximum residue level (MRL) proposals for citrus fruits, blackberries, raspberries, Chinese cabbage, basil and edible flowers and asparagus. For dewberries, potatoes and sweet potatoes, data gaps were identified which precluded the derivation of MRL proposals. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of oxathiapiprolin in plant matrices at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the long-term intake of residues resulting from the use of oxathiapiprolin according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health.The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty-four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91 two ([FL-no 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL-no 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL-no 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL-no 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL-no 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. link2 The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL-no 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL-no 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re-evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre-systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns.The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) assigned these food additives together with other aluminium-containing food additives a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 7 mg aluminium/kg body weight (bw). In 2008, EFSA established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw per week. Sodium aluminium silicate was shown in rats to be absorbed to a limited extent at 0.12 ± 0.011%. The Panel considered that potassium aluminium silicate would be absorbed and become systemically available similarly to sodium aluminium silicate. No information on the physicochemical characterisation of sodium aluminium silicate and potassium aluminium silicate when used as food additives has been submitted and only very limited toxicological data were available for sodium aluminium silicate. Exposure to E 554 was calculated based on the reported use levels in food supplements. Exposure to aluminium from this use of E 554 was calculated to exceed the TWI for aluminium. Based on the data provided by interested business operators, the Panel considered that E 555 is not being used as a carrier, but as an inseparable component of 'potassium aluminium silicate-based pearlescent pigments'. The Panel calculated the regulatory maximum exposure to E 555 as a carrier for titanium dioxide (E 171) and iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172). Exposure to aluminium from this single use at the maximum permitted level could theoretically far exceed the TWI. Considering that only very limited toxicological data and insufficient information on the physicochemical characterisation of both food additives were available, the Panel concluded that the safety of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) could not be assessed.According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance flubendiamide. To assess the occurrence of flubendiamide residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011, the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as well as the import tolerances (including the supporting residues data). No European authorisation was reported by Member States. link3 Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Some information required by the regulatory framework was missing and a possible acute risk to consumers was identified. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only, some MRL proposals derived by EFSA still requires further consideration by risk managers and measures for reduction of the consumer exposure should also be considered.