Singhvedel2596

Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, in particular, the QPS status of the production strain and that no issues of concern arose from the production process, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme β-amylase produced with B. flexus strain AE-BAF does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of titanium dioxide (TiO2) for all animal species. TiO2 is applied to be used as a sensory additive (functional group colourants; i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Selleckchem BMS-986165 The specification for TiO2 used as feed additive meets the specifications of TiO2 used as food additive. The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF) concluded that TiO2 (E171) can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) endorses this conclusion and considers that it also applies to TiO2 as a feed additive for all animal species. TiO2 is absorbed to a low extent; however, particles of TiO2 can accumulate in the body due to their long half-life. The genotoxicity of TiO2 particles cannot be ruled out raising potential concerns on the safety of the additive for the target species (especially for long-living animals and reproductive animals), consumers and user. Considering this fact and the absence of specific data related to its use as a feed additive, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of TiO2 for the target species, consumers and environment. In the absence of studies with the additive under assessment, the Panel cannot conclude on the assessment of the effects of the additive on eyes and skin. TiO2 is potentially carcinogenic to workers if inhaled. The concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 particles cannot be ruled out, this should be considered as an additional potential concern to users handling the additive. TiO2 is efficacious in colouring the food for cats and dogs at a minimum content of 1%.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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 12836, 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 is 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 Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the extension of use of the feed additive consisting of Bacillus velezensis CECT 5940 (tradename Ecobiol®) to turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying and ornamental birds (except for reproduction). The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. During the course of the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as B. velezensis CECT 5940. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agent was established and the compliance with the other qualifications confirmed. Therefore, B. velezensis CECT 5940 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, the additive Ecobiol® is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin/eye or a skin sensitiser, but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The efficacy data previously evaluated allowed the Panel to conclude that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg feed in turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying and ornamental birds (except for reproduction).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 phyllite, a natural mixture of minerals of metamorphic origin, as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive, specified to contain at least 40% of mica, muscovite, illite, chlorite and talc as the main components, and maximum 60% of quartz, potassium-feldspar, sodium-feldspar and calcite, is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups (i) anticaking agents) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species at a maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg. The additive is safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying/breeding at the maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg feed, with no margin of safety determined. Owing the absence of data in pigs and ruminants and in the absence of data on the potential genotoxicity of the additive, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for any other animal species/categories.