Dermal Sensitization Research Articles

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044 (ECONASE® XT) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species (AB Enzymes Finland Oy)

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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract for use in all animal species except fin fish (NOR-FEED SAS).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs for the renewal of the authorisation (Azelis Denmark A/S)

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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of l-arginine produced with Escherichia coliCGMCC 7.401 for all animal species (Eppen Europe SAS).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l-arginine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 7.401). The additive is intended to be used in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The genetic modifications introduced do not raise safety concerns. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. l-Arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed and water. The use of l-arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for persons handling the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or to be a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. The additive l-arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-arginine for non-ruminant species. For supplemental l-arginine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from the flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel (tea tree oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long-living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of tartrazine for its use in baits for freshwater fish (GIFAP).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tartrazine as sensory additive (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Tartrazine is intended to be incorporated in fishing baits up to a maximum of 30 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them and attract fish in freshwater (ponds, rivers), for both recreational and competitive fishing. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. Tartrazine is already authorised for use with cats and dogs, ornamental fish, grain-eating ornamental birds and small rodents. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of tartrazine in the preparation of baits for freshwater fish under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the target animals. The use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data, no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of tartrazine in freshwater fish baits.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of l-valine produced with Escherichia coliCGMCC 22721 for all animal species (Eppen Europe SAS).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l-valine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 22721) as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed. The use of l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of l-valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 to irritant to the skin or eyes, a dermal or respiratory sensitiser due to the lack of data. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for users handling the additive when exposed by inhalation. The additive l-valine produced by fermentation using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-valine for non-ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l-valine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen.

An integrated In-Silico-In-Chemico-In-Vitro (iSiCiV) Approach to identify biomarkers to predict the skin sensitisation potential of phytochemicals

BackgroundSkin sensitisation is one of the important regulatory endpoints used to determine whether a given test chemical can elicit an allergic response in susceptible individuals. The in-vitro approaches for predicting skin sensitisation potential for chemicals have been well-developed and widely accepted. Continuous efforts are being made to identify novel solutions to overcome the limitations of the existing approaches. PurposeThe herbal preparations used in dermal therapeutics are frequently found to elicit skin sensitisation, requiring caution. The herbal preparations tend to contain more than one phytochemical. The expected active ingredient may not possess skin sensitisation. However, the other phytochemical traces could pose synergistic and potentiating effects towards enhanced/suppressed skin sensitisation. In this regard, isolation, purification, yield, and in-vitro / in-vivo evaluation of skin sensitisation for all the traces would be time, cost, and animal-consuming. Hence, the regulatory agencies appreciate using computational tools to substantiate in-vitro methods. The regulators have also endorsed using in-silico approaches like quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read-across. These approaches are limited to structure-based predictions and in combination with system-level approaches, which comprehensively facilitate a better understanding of complex biological systems. Study designIn the present study, 603 phytochemicals were screened in-silico using OECD QSAR Toolbox. The limitations of the QSAR Toolbox in predicting skin sensitisers were identified. MethodThe systems biology-based approach to complement the QSAR-based prediction was developed, and 41 biomarkers were identified as a determinant of skin sensitisation. The molecules attributed to these biomarkers were predicted as skin sensitisers. ResultsAs a result, 31 phytochemicals were predicted as skin sensitisers. Acrolein, eugenol, formaldehyde, and glycerol were selected for experimental validation of the in-silico predictions using direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), KeratinoSens™, and h-CLAT assays representing each key event in skin sensitisation. Further, identified biomarkers were validated in THP-1 and KeratinoSens cell lines using qRT-PCR. Among all genes, IL-8 and CCL4 were upregulated by 6.4 and 5.6 folds, respectively, in THP-1, while AKR1C2 and AKR1C3 were upregulated by 7.8 and 11.1 folds, respectively, in KeratinoSens. IL-8 level was analysed by ELISA and found to be in line with qRT-PCR results. ConclusionThe study proposes a possible strategy based on the “iSiCiV” approach to enhance the prediction of the dermal sensitisation potential of a test compound. The approach offers a robust platform and highlights an opportunity to shift the paradigm of skin sensitisation assay with a better understanding of toxicology mechanisms.

Updating Reaction Mechanistic Domains for Skin Sensitization: 1. Nucleophilic Skin Sensitizers.

It has long been recognized that skin sensitizers either are electrophilic or can be activated to electrophilic species. Several nonanimal assays for skin sensitization are based on this premise. In the course of a project to update dermal sensitization thresholds (DST), we found a substantial number of sensitizers, with no electrophilic or pro-electrophilic alerts, that could be simply explained in terms of the sensitizer acting as a nucleophile. In some cases, the nucleophilic center is a sulfur or phosphorus atom, while in others, it is an aromatic carbon atom. For carbon-centered nucleophiles, a quantitative mechanistic model based on a combination of Hammett σ+ and logP values has been derived. This has been applied to rationalize several groups of known sensitizers with no electrophilic or pro-electrophilic alerts, including anacardic acids and cardols, which are known human sensitizers associated with, inter alia, cashew nut oil, mango, and Ginkgo biloba. The possibility of nucleophilic sensitization needs to be considered when evaluating new chemicals for skin sensitization potential and potency by nonanimal assays, particularly those based on the premise that skin sensitization is dependent upon reactions of electrophiles with skin protein-based nucleophiles.

S08-03 Exploring applicability domain and predictive value across in vitro platforms to detect potential dermal sensitizers

S08-03 Exploring applicability domain and predictive value across in vitro platforms to detect potential dermal sensitizers

Using cephalopod-inspired chemistry to extend long-wavelength ultraviolet and visible light protection of mineral sunscreens.

The emergence of new human and environmental-related toxicity data associated with some common UV filters has catalysed growing interest in the inclusion of boosters and stabilizing ingredients in sunscreens. One approach is to incorporate alternative materials inspired by or mimetic of systems in biology, which offer a notable evolutionary advantage of multifunctionality and stability with increased biocompatibility. We describe the use of a natural product, Xanthochrome® (INCI: Ammonium Xanthommatin), in a series of studies designed to not only assess its safety with marine systems but also its formulation compatibility and function in water-in-oil mineral sunscreens. Xanthochrome is the synthetic form of the naturally occurring chromophore xanthommatin (XA) present in cephalopod skin, which doubles as a photostable antioxidant; however, it has never been explored in combination with mineral UV filters in finished formulations. Given the recent controversies associated with the environmental toxicological effects of some chemicals used in sunscreens, the safety of XA with coral cuttings was first validated at concentrations 5× above those used in our formulations. Next, a particle-based delivery of XA was designed and incorporated into a zinc oxide (ZnO)-based water-in-oil sunscreen, where the SPF, critical wavelength, and visible light (VL) blocking potential were measured. We observed no adverse effects of XA at 100 mg/L when tested with coral cuttings, demonstrating its safety at concentrations exceeding those used in our sunscreens. When formulated with ZnO-based sunscreens, the inclusion of XA increased the total UV absorbance profile by 28% and the total blocking potential of VL by 45%. The formulations also elicited no dermal irritation or sensitization in a human insult repeat patch test (N = 100 subjects). XA is differentiated as a photostable, water-soluble compound that is a VL booster proven safe for skin and coral cuttings. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other boosters that can be classified as such, despite a growing body of literature highlighting the need in the industry.

Safety of a feed additive consisting of sepiolite for all animal species (Sepiol S.A. and Tolsa S.A.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener-suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe for all animal species.

Modification of the terms of authorisation regarding the additive consisting of liquid l-lysine base produced with Corynebacterium glutamicumNRRL B-67439 and NRRL B-67535 for all animal species (ADM specialty ingredients (Europe) B.V.).

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 liquid l-lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l-lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B-67535 and NRRL B-67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B-68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l-Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l-Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B-68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-lysine for non-ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l-lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of red carotenoid-rich Paracoccus carotinifaciensNITE SD 00017 for salmon and trout for the renewal of its authorisation (ENEOS Techno Materials Corporation).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on red carotenoid-rich Paracoccus carotinifaciens NITE SD 00017 for salmon and trout (category: sensory additives; functional group: colourants; substances which when fed to animals add colours to food of animal origin) for the renewal of its authorisation. The applicant provided evidence that the additive complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of the additive in salmon and trout remains safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. When assessing consumer exposure to canthaxanthin and adonirubin at the level of the existing maximum residue limits (MRL) for poultry and the proposed MRL for trout/salmon (5 mg/kg muscle), the exposure of consumers exceeds the acceptable daily intake (ADI) in the population classes toddlers and other children. The Panel considers that there is no need to restrict the use of the additive to fish older than 6 months or of more than 50 g. Red carotenoid-rich Paracoccus carotinifaciens NITE SD 00017 is not irritant to the skin, but is irritant to the eyes. It is considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure via skin or the respiratory tract is a risk.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS) for weaned piglets for the renewal of its authorisation and for its extension of use to suckling piglets (AVEVE BV).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS/ AveMix® 02 CS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use with weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions that the additive is safe for weaned piglets, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion applied also to the new target species (suckling piglets) for which a request for an extension of use was made. The additive in both formulations (powder and liquid) is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 2140 XU, 1230 BGU and 46 PGLU/kg complete feed.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of l-tyrosine for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (BCF Life Sciences).

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 l-tyrosine as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c401). The applicant has 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 concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, consumers, and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l-tyrosine is not an irritant to skin or eyes. In the absence of data, the potential of l-tyrosine to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser cannot be excluded. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive is likely. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and, therefore, there is no need for re-assessing the efficacy.

Acute dermal irritation and skin sensitization study of mesoporous antibacterial bioactive glass microsphere impregnated surgical cotton gauze dressing material on rabbits and guinea pigs

Acute dermal irritation and skin sensitization study of mesoporous antibacterial bioactive glass microsphere impregnated surgical cotton gauze dressing material on rabbits and guinea pigs