Opinion of the Scientific Panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) on vis-à-vis biological risks of biogas and compost treatment standards of animal by-products (ABP)

Evaluation of alternative methods of tunnel composting (submitted by the European Composting Network) II

Two alternative methods for producing compost in a tunnel, from certain category (Cat.) 3 animal by-products (ABP) and other non-ABP material, were assessed. The first method proposed a minimum temperature of 55°C for 72 h and the second 60°C for 48 h, both with a maximum particle size of 200 mm. The assessment of the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) exclusively focused on Cat. 3 ABP materials (catering waste and processed foodstuffs of animal origin no longer intended for human consumption). The proposed composting processes were evaluated for their efficacy to achieve a reduction of at least 5 log10 of Enterococcus faecalis and Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H2S negative) and at least 3 log10 of relevant thermoresistant viruses. The applicant provided a list of biological hazards that may enter the composting process and selected parvoviruses as the indicator of the thermoresistant viruses. The evidence provided by the applicant included: (a) literature data on thermal inactivation of biological hazards; (b) results from validation studies on the reduction of E. faecalis, Salmonella Senftenberg 775W H2S negative and canine parvovirus carried out in composting plants across Europe; (c) and experimental data from direct measurements of reduction of infectivity of murine parvovirus in compost material applying the time/temperature conditions of the two alternative methods. The evidence provided showed the capacity of the proposed alternative methods to reduce E. faecalis and Salmonella Senftenberg 775W H2S negative by at least 5 log10, and parvoviruses by at least 3 log10. The BIOHAZ Panel concluded that the two alternative methods under assessment can be considered to be equivalent to the processing method currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.

Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals

An assessment was conducted on the level of inactivation of relevant pathogens that could be present in processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals when methods 2 to 5 and method 7, as detailed in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, are applied. Five approved scenarios were selected for method 7. Salmonella Senftenberg, Enterococcus faecalis, spores of Clostridium perfringens and parvoviruses were shortlisted as target indicators. Inactivation parameters for these indicators were extracted from extensive literature search and a recent EFSA scientific opinion. An adapted Bigelow model was fitted to retrieved data to estimate the probability that methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive modes, and the five scenarios of method 7 are able to achieve a 5 log10 and a 3 log10 reduction of bacterial indicators and parvoviruses, respectively. Spores of C. perfringens were the indicator with the lowest probability of achieving the target reduction by methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive mode, and by the five considered scenarios of method 7. An expert knowledge elicitation was conducted to estimate the certainty of achieving a 5 log10 reduction of spores of C. perfringens considering the results of the model and additional evidence. A 5 log10 reduction of C. perfringens spores was judged: 99-100% certain for methods 2 and 3 in coincidental mode; 98-100% certain for method 7 scenario 3; 80-99% certain for method 5 in coincidental mode; 66-100% certain for method 4 in coincidental mode and for method 7 scenarios 4 and 5; 25-75% certain for method 7 scenario 2; and 0-5% certain for method 7 scenario 1. Higher certainty is expected for methods 2 to 5 in consecutive mode compared to coincidental mode.

Evaluation of a multi-step catalytic co-processing hydrotreatment for the production of renewable fuels using Category 3 animal fat and used cooking oils

An alternative method for the production of renewable fuels from rendered animal fats (pretreated using methods 1-5 or method 7 as described in Annex IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2011/142) and used cooking oils, derived from Category 3 animal by-products, was assessed. The method is based on a catalytic co-processing hydrotreatment using a middle distillate followed by a stripping step. The materials must be submitted to a pressure of at least 60 bars and a temperature of at least 270°C for at least 4.7 min. The application focuses on the demonstration of the level of reduction of spores from non-pathogenic spore-forming indicator bacterial species (Bacillus subtilis and Desulfotomaculum kuznetsovii), based on a non-systematic review of published data and additional extrapolation analyses. The EFSA BIOHAZ Panel considers that the application and supporting literature contain sufficient evidence that the proposed alternative method can achieve a reduction of at least 5 log10 in the spores of B. subtilis and a 12 log10 reduction in the spores of C. botulinum. The alternative method under evaluation is considered at least equivalent to the processing methods currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 2011/142.

Evaluation of the application for a new alternative processing method for animal by-products of Category 3 material (ChainCraft B.V.)

EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture.