Abstract The food enzyme protein‐glutamine γ‐glutamyltransferase (protein‐glutamine: amine γ‐glutamyltransferase; EC 2.3.2.13) is produced with the non‐genetically modified S. mobaraensis strain AE‐BTG by AJINOMOTO EUROPE SAS. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.398 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 538 mg TOS/kg bw per day which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1351. A search for homology of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. Known sources of food allergens were used in the food enzyme manufacturing process, and the Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non‐irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non‐irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed.

Abstract 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 a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract The European Commission (EC) asked EFSA to assess the genotoxicity of beauvericin (BEA). Relevant information, including that which has become available since the 2014 Scientific Opinion on the risks to human and animal health related to the presence of BEA and enniatins in food and feed, was reviewed. In the previous Opinion the Panel concluded that in vitro genotoxicity data were equivocal and there were no in vivo genotoxicity data available. New in vitro studies in mammalian cell lines provided no convincing evidence for induction of chromosomal damage by BEA as measured by micronucleus and chromosome aberration tests or an increase of DNA strand breaks as assessed by the Comet assay. In these studies, no concentration‐dependent effects or potential for interference from associated cytotoxicity were observed. In addition, DNA double‐strand breaks as measured by γ‐H2AX analysis were only observed following exposure to highly cytotoxic BEA concentrations. In vivo studies (Comet and Pig‐a assays, micronucleus test) with BEA were negative. In vitro gene expression studies showed no indication of a DNA damage response and (quantitative) structure activity relationship analysis was also not indicative of genotoxic potential. Some effects of BEA might play an indirect role in the formation of DNA strand breaks. These include increased reactive oxygen species, induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, associated with interference in mitochondrial function and cell signalling. There was no compelling evidence of inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Taken together, the available data indicate that BEA is devoid of genotoxic potential.

Abstract In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant Corteva Agriscience International Sàrl submitted a request to the competent national authority in the Netherlands to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) in certain animal commodities (fat and liver) and honey. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive an MRL proposal for honey. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues according to the residue definition for enforcement proposed as ‘picloram, free and conjugated, expressed as picloram’ in honey at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. For the commodities of animal origin, although the submitted data were found to be sufficient, EFSA concluded that no change of the existing MRLs was necessary. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues expected in honey, resulting from the existing uses of picloram on melliferous crops, is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health.

Abstract The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Italy, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Poland, for the pesticide active substance penoxsulam are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of penoxsulam as a herbicide on rice and chicory. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Abstract 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 fumaric acid as a technological and sensory additive (functional groups: preservative and flavouring compounds, respectively) and for a new use of the additive as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulator) for all animal species. The applicant 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 (FEEDAP) concluded that fumaric acid remains safe under the authorised conditions of use for the terrestrial animals, consumers and the environment. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the aquatic animals under all authorised condition of use. Fumaric acid is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel. The Panel also considers that the new use of the additive as an acidity regulator under proposed conditions of use would not introduce risks not already considered. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation (for its use as preservative and flavouring compound). The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of fumaric acid as an acidity regulator in feed.

Abstract The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐GT by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in five food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to thirteen additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of eighteen food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining sixteen processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.678 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.