1
|
Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos MDL, Christensen H, Fašmon Durjava M, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Brantom P, Chesson A, Westendorf J, Manini P, Pizzo F, Dusemund B. Safety and efficacy of feed additives consisting of expressed sweet orange peel oil and its fractions from Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06891. [PMID: 34824643 PMCID: PMC8603005 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6891] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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 expressed sweet orange oil and its fractions obtained from the fruit peels of Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck, when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The presence of perillaldehyde was identified as a source of potential concern. However, in target species fed citrus by-products as part of daily feed, the use of the expressed orange oil and its fractions was not expected to increase the exposure to perillaldehyde to a relevant extent (< 10%). For dogs, cats, ornamental fish and ornamental birds not normally exposed to citrus by-products, no conclusion can be drawn. For the other species, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additives under assessment are safe at the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use 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. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additives up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as skin and respiratory sensitisers. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions of use in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Expressed orange oil and its fractions were recognised to flavour food. Since their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.
Collapse
|
2
|
Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos MDL, Christensen H, Kouba M, Fašmon Durjava M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Brantom P, Chesson A, Westendorf J, Manini P, Pizzo F, Dusemund B. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of expressed mandarin oil from the fruit peels of Citrus reticulata Blanco for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06625. [PMID: 34136001 PMCID: PMC8190682 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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 expressed mandarin oil from the fruit peels of Citrus reticulata Blanco, when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry, 33 mg/kg for pigs, 30 mg/kg for ruminants, 40 mg/kg for horse, and 15 mg/kg for salmon and rabbit. The presence of perillaldehyde was identified as a source of potential concern. However, in target species fed citrus by-products as part of daily feed the use of the expressed mandarin oil in feed was not expected to increase the exposure to perillaldehyde to a relevant extent (< 4%). For companion animals and ornamental fish not normally exposed to citrus by-products, no conclusion can be drawn. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use 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. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract, and as a skin sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Expressed mandarin oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.
Collapse
|
3
|
Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos MDL, Christensen H, Fašmon Durjava M, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Brantom P, Chesson A, Westendorf J, Manini P, Pizzo F, Dusemund B. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the leaves of Citrus × aurantium L. (petitgrain bigarade oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06624. [PMID: 34136000 PMCID: PMC8193547 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
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 an essential oil from the leaves of Citrus x aurantium L. (petitgrain bigarade oil), when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 125 mg/kg complete feed for ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed are 10 mg/kg for chicken for fattening, 14 mg/kg for laying hen, 13 mg/kg for turkey for fattening, 17 mg/kg for piglet, 20 mg/kg for pig for fattening, 25 mg/kg for lactating sow, 43 mg/kg for veal calf (milk replacer), 38 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goat and horse, 24 mg/kg for dairy cow, 15 mg/kg for rabbit, 42 mg/kg for salmon, 44 mg/kg for dog and 8 mg/kg for cat. 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. Simultaneous use in feed and water for drinking may lead to the maximum safe dose being exceeded. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract, and as a skin sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Petitgrain bigarade oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.
Collapse
|
4
|
Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos MDL, Christensen H, Fašmon Durjava M, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Brantom P, Chesson A, Westendorf J, Manini P, Pizzo F, Dusemund B. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the fruits of Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers. (litsea berry oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06623. [PMID: 34135999 PMCID: PMC8193530 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
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 an essential oil from the fruits of Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers. (litsea berry oil), when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that litsea berry oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 125 mg/kg complete feed for ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentration in complete feed are 11 mg/kg for chicken for fattening, 16 mg/kg for laying hen, 14 mg/kg for turkey for fattening, 19 mg/kg for piglet, 23 mg/kg for pig for fattening, 28 mg/kg for lactating sow, 48 mg/kg for veal calf (milk replacer), 43 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goat and horse, 28 mg/kg for dairy cow, 17 mg/kg for rabbit, 47 mg/kg for salmon, 50 mg/kg for dog and 8.5 mg/kg for cat. The FEEDAP Panel also concluded that the use of litsea berry oil at the maximum proposed use level in water for drinking of 1 mg/kg is safe for all animal species. Simultaneous use in feed and water for drinking may lead to the maximum safe dose being exceeded. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed for the target animals. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Litsea berry oil is recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.
Collapse
|
5
|
Younes M, Aquilina G, Castle L, Engel KH, Fowler P, Frutos Fernandez MJ, Fürst P, Gürtler R, Gundert-Remy U, Husøy T, Moldeus P, Oskarsson A, Shah R, Waalkens-Berendsen I, Wölfle D, Benigni R, Bolognesi C, Chipman K, Cordelli E, Degen G, Marzin D, Svendsen C, Carfì M, Kovalkovicova N, Martino C, Vianello G, Mennes W. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3): consideration of genotoxicity data on alicyclic aldehydes with α,β-unsaturation in ring/side-chain and precursors from chemical subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05569. [PMID: 32626109 PMCID: PMC7009078 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3). In FGE.208Rev1, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) evaluated genotoxicity studies on the representative substance p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117], which was found to be genotoxic in vivo. The Panel concluded that there was a potential safety concern for the nine substances in this FGE that were all represented by [FL-no: 05.177]. Consequently, substance [FL-no: 05.117], as well as four substances ([FL-no: 05.121, 09.272, 09.899 and 09.900]), no longer supported by industry were deleted from the Union List. In FGE.208Rev2, the Panel assessed genotoxicity studies submitted on five flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.060, 02.091, 05.106, 09.278 and 09.302] and concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for these substances, except from myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106] for which the available data were considered equivocal. Thus, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies (a bacterial reverse mutation assay and a combined in vivo bone marrow erythrocytes micronucleus test and Comet assay in liver and duodenum) for this substance which were evaluated in the present opinion, FGE.208Rev3. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106]. Subsequently, this substance can be evaluated through the Procedure.
Collapse
|