Pub Date : 2024-11-22DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9089
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña, Nicolas Desneux, Anna Filipiak, Paolo Gonthier, Beata Hasiów-Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B. Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski, Panagiotis Milonas, Nikos T. Papadopoulos, Roel Potting, Hanna Susi, Dirk Jan van der Gaag, Pedro Gómez, Annemarie Justesen Andrea Lucchi, Gregor Urek, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala, Umberto Bernardo, Giovanni Bubici, Anna Vittoria Carluccio, Michela Chiumenti, Francesco Di Serio, Elena Fanelli, Paraskevi Kariampa, Cristina Marzachì, Agata Kaczmarek, Cristiana Do Vale Correia, Anna Berlin
The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High-risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by plants of hybrids of Prunus cerasus x Prunus canescens imported from Ukraine, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Ukraine. All pests that may be associated with the hybrids of P. cerasus x P. canescens were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. None of the pests fulfilled all relevant criteria due to the production method and risk mitigation measures carried out by the nursery; therefore, none were selected for further evaluation.
欧盟委员会要求欧洲食物安全局植物健康专家小组准备并提供对委员会 2018/2019 号实施条例(欧盟)中所列 "高风险植物、植物产品和其他物品 "商品的风险评估。本科学意见涉及从乌克兰进口的 Prunus cerasus x Prunus canescens 杂交种植物带来的植物健康风险,其中考虑到了现有的科学信息,包括乌克兰提供的技术信息。所有可能与 P. cerasus x P. canescens 杂交品种有关的害虫都根据其与本意见相关性的具体标准进行了评估。由于苗圃采用的生产方法和风险缓解措施,没有一种害虫符合所有相关标准;因此,没有选择任何一种害虫进行进一步评估。
{"title":"Commodity risk assessment of Prunus cerasus × Prunus canescens hybrid plants from Ukraine","authors":"EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña, Nicolas Desneux, Anna Filipiak, Paolo Gonthier, Beata Hasiów-Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B. Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski, Panagiotis Milonas, Nikos T. Papadopoulos, Roel Potting, Hanna Susi, Dirk Jan van der Gaag, Pedro Gómez, Annemarie Justesen Andrea Lucchi, Gregor Urek, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala, Umberto Bernardo, Giovanni Bubici, Anna Vittoria Carluccio, Michela Chiumenti, Francesco Di Serio, Elena Fanelli, Paraskevi Kariampa, Cristina Marzachì, Agata Kaczmarek, Cristiana Do Vale Correia, Anna Berlin","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9089","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High-risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by plants of hybrids of <i>Prunus cerasus</i> x <i>Prunus canescens</i> imported from Ukraine, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Ukraine. All pests that may be associated with the hybrids of <i>P. cerasus</i> x <i>P. canescens</i> were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. None of the pests fulfilled all relevant criteria due to the production method and risk mitigation measures carried out by the nursery; therefore, none were selected for further evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9089","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142707845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-20DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9074
EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), Roberto Edoardo Villa, Giovanna Azimonti, Eleftherios Bonos, Henrik Christensen, Mojca Durjava, Birgit Dusemund, Ronette Gehring, Boet Glandorf, Maryline Kouba, Marta López-Alonso, Francesca Marcon, Carlo Nebbia, Alena Pechová, Miguel Prieto-Maradona, Ilen Röhe, Katerina Theodoridou, Montserrat Anguita, Nicole Bozzi Cionci, Jaume Galobart, Matteo L. Innocenti, Joana Revez
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of a preparation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead to the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions for all animal species, consumers and the environment, for which the additive is considered to remain safe. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that L. paracasei NCIMB 30151 should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of renewal of the authorisation.
{"title":"Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Microferm ltd.)","authors":"EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), Roberto Edoardo Villa, Giovanna Azimonti, Eleftherios Bonos, Henrik Christensen, Mojca Durjava, Birgit Dusemund, Ronette Gehring, Boet Glandorf, Maryline Kouba, Marta López-Alonso, Francesca Marcon, Carlo Nebbia, Alena Pechová, Miguel Prieto-Maradona, Ilen Röhe, Katerina Theodoridou, Montserrat Anguita, Nicole Bozzi Cionci, Jaume Galobart, Matteo L. Innocenti, Joana Revez","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9074","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of a preparation of <i>Lacticaseibacillus paracasei</i> NCIMB 30151 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead to the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions for all animal species, consumers and the environment, for which the additive is considered to remain safe. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that <i>L. paracasei</i> NCIMB 30151 should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of renewal of the authorisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9074","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142674140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-19DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100
EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Dominique Turck, Torsten Bohn, Montaña Cámara, Jacqueline Castenmiller, Stefaan de Henauw, Karen-Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Ángeles Jos, Alexandre Maciuk, Inge Mangelsdorf, Breige McNulty, Androniki Naska, Kristina Pentieva, Frank Thies, Ionut Craciun, Thibault Fiolet, Alfonso Siani
Following an application from Alzchem Trostberg GmbH, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Austria, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to creatine and improvement in cognitive function. The Panel considers that the food constituent, creatine, is sufficiently characterised. An improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains is a beneficial physiological effect. The applicant identified 21 human intervention studies on creatine supplementation and measures of cognitive function through a literature search. Two additional studies published after the search was conducted were identified through the reference list of a meta-analysis. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the acute effect of creatine on working memory, observed in two studies at 20 g/day for 5–7 days, was not seen at lower doses (2.2–14 g/day), or with continuous consumption (5 g/day for 6 weeks following a 5-day loading phase). Furthermore, the effect on response inhibition at 20 g/day for 7 days was an isolated finding among 10 intervention studies in healthy individuals, with no effects observed on other cognitive domains. The Panel also considered that the three intervention studies conducted in diseased individuals do not support an effect of creatine supplementation on cognition, and that the available evidence for a mechanism by which creatine could exert the claimed effect is weak. The Panel concludes that a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established between creatine supplementation and an improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains.
{"title":"Creatine and improvement in cognitive function: Evaluation of a health claim pursuant to article 13(5) of regulation (EC) No 1924/2006","authors":"EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Dominique Turck, Torsten Bohn, Montaña Cámara, Jacqueline Castenmiller, Stefaan de Henauw, Karen-Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Ángeles Jos, Alexandre Maciuk, Inge Mangelsdorf, Breige McNulty, Androniki Naska, Kristina Pentieva, Frank Thies, Ionut Craciun, Thibault Fiolet, Alfonso Siani","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Following an application from Alzchem Trostberg GmbH, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Austria, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to creatine and improvement in cognitive function. The Panel considers that the food constituent, creatine, is sufficiently characterised. An improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains is a beneficial physiological effect. The applicant identified 21 human intervention studies on creatine supplementation and measures of cognitive function through a literature search. Two additional studies published after the search was conducted were identified through the reference list of a meta-analysis. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the acute effect of creatine on working memory, observed in two studies at 20 g/day for 5–7 days, was not seen at lower doses (2.2–14 g/day), or with continuous consumption (5 g/day for 6 weeks following a 5-day loading phase). Furthermore, the effect on response inhibition at 20 g/day for 7 days was an isolated finding among 10 intervention studies in healthy individuals, with no effects observed on other cognitive domains. The Panel also considered that the three intervention studies conducted in diseased individuals do not support an effect of creatine supplementation on cognition, and that the available evidence for a mechanism by which creatine could exert the claimed effect is weak. The Panel concludes that a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established between creatine supplementation and an improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142674277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-19DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9066
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Fernando Álvarez, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Sofia Batista Leite, Marco Binaglia, Anna Federica Castoldi, Arianna Chiusolo, Angelo Colagiorgi, Mathilde Colas, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Isabella De Magistris, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Franco Ferilli, German Giner Santonja, Varvara Gouliarmou, Katrin Halling, Laia Herrero Nogareda, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Aude Kienzler, Anna Lanzoni, Roberto Lava, Renata Leuschner, Alberto Linguadoca, Jochem Louisse, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Andrea Mioč, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Vincenzo Padricello, Martina Panzarea, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Simone Rizzuto, Anamarija Romac, Agnès Rortais, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Giorgia Vianello, Laura Villamar-Bouza
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 Slovenia and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellins (GA4/GA7) and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 gibberellins (GA4/GA7) as a plant growth regulator on apple and pear (field use). 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 when identified.
{"title":"Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance gibberellins (GA4/GA7)","authors":"European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Fernando Álvarez, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Sofia Batista Leite, Marco Binaglia, Anna Federica Castoldi, Arianna Chiusolo, Angelo Colagiorgi, Mathilde Colas, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Isabella De Magistris, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Franco Ferilli, German Giner Santonja, Varvara Gouliarmou, Katrin Halling, Laia Herrero Nogareda, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Aude Kienzler, Anna Lanzoni, Roberto Lava, Renata Leuschner, Alberto Linguadoca, Jochem Louisse, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Andrea Mioč, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Vincenzo Padricello, Martina Panzarea, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Simone Rizzuto, Anamarija Romac, Agnès Rortais, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Giorgia Vianello, Laura Villamar-Bouza","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9066","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 Slovenia and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellins (GA4/GA7) and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 gibberellins (GA4/GA7) as a plant growth regulator on apple and pear (field use). 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 when identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142674218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-19DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9065
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Fernando Álvarez, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Sofia Batista Leite, Marco Binaglia, Anna Federica Castoldi, Arianna Chiusolo, Angelo Colagiorgi, Mathilde Colas, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Isabella De Magistris, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Franco Ferilli, German Giner Santonja, Varvara Gouliarmou, Katrin Halling, Laia Herrero Nogareda, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Aude Kienzler, Anna Lanzoni, Roberto Lava, Renata Leuschner, Alberto Linguadoca, Jochem Louisse, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Andrea Mioč, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Vincenzo Padricello, Martina Panzarea, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Simone Rizzuto, Anamarija Romac, Agnès Rortais, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Giorgia Vianello, Laura Villamar-Bouza
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 Slovenia and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellic acid and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 use of gibberellic acid as a plant growth regulator on seedless grapes (field use). 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 when identified.
{"title":"Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance gibberellic acid (GA3)","authors":"European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Fernando Álvarez, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Sofia Batista Leite, Marco Binaglia, Anna Federica Castoldi, Arianna Chiusolo, Angelo Colagiorgi, Mathilde Colas, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Isabella De Magistris, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Franco Ferilli, German Giner Santonja, Varvara Gouliarmou, Katrin Halling, Laia Herrero Nogareda, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Aude Kienzler, Anna Lanzoni, Roberto Lava, Renata Leuschner, Alberto Linguadoca, Jochem Louisse, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Andrea Mioč, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Vincenzo Padricello, Martina Panzarea, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Simone Rizzuto, Anamarija Romac, Agnès Rortais, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Giorgia Vianello, Laura Villamar-Bouza","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9065","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 Slovenia and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellic acid and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 use of gibberellic acid as a plant growth regulator on seedless grapes (field use). 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 when identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142674205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-15DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9072
EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), Roberto Edoardo Villa, Giovanna Azimonti, Eleftherios Bonos, Henrik Christensen, Mojca Durjava, Birgit Dusemund, Ronette Gehring, Boet Glandorf, Maryline Kouba, Marta López-Alonso, Francesca Marcon, Carlo Nebbia, Alena Pechová, Miguel Prieto-Maradona, Ilen Röhe, Katerina Theodoridou, Maria Bastos, Georges Bories, Paul Brantom, Jürgen Gropp, Kettil Svensson, Luca Tosti, Antonio Finizio, Anna Dioni, Jaume Galobart, Orsolya Holczknecht, Fabiola Pizzo, Maria Vittoria Vettori, Angelica Amaduzzi
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ponceau 4R as sensory additives (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). The additive is already authorised for use with cats and dogs and ornamental fish. The additive is intended to be incorporated in freshwater fishing baits up to a maximum of 15 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them. The additive is intended to be incorporated into feed directly in solid form or via an aqueous solution. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ponceau 4R is considered safe when used in fish baits for freshwater fish at the maximum proposed dose of 15 mg/kg complementary feed. The use of the feed additive ponceau 4R fish baits for freshwater fish under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. Ponceau 4R is not skin irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of ponceau 4R in freshwater fish baits.
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of ponceau 4R for its use in baits for freshwater fish (GIFAP)","authors":"EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), Roberto Edoardo Villa, Giovanna Azimonti, Eleftherios Bonos, Henrik Christensen, Mojca Durjava, Birgit Dusemund, Ronette Gehring, Boet Glandorf, Maryline Kouba, Marta López-Alonso, Francesca Marcon, Carlo Nebbia, Alena Pechová, Miguel Prieto-Maradona, Ilen Röhe, Katerina Theodoridou, Maria Bastos, Georges Bories, Paul Brantom, Jürgen Gropp, Kettil Svensson, Luca Tosti, Antonio Finizio, Anna Dioni, Jaume Galobart, Orsolya Holczknecht, Fabiola Pizzo, Maria Vittoria Vettori, Angelica Amaduzzi","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9072","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ponceau 4R as sensory additives (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). The additive is already authorised for use with cats and dogs and ornamental fish. The additive is intended to be incorporated in freshwater fishing baits up to a maximum of 15 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them. The additive is intended to be incorporated into feed directly in solid form or via an aqueous solution. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that ponceau 4R is considered safe when used in fish baits for freshwater fish at the maximum proposed dose of 15 mg/kg complementary feed. The use of the feed additive ponceau 4R fish baits for freshwater fish under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. Ponceau 4R is not skin irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of ponceau 4R in freshwater fish baits.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9072","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-15DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Josep Casacuberta, Francisco Barro, Albert Braeuning, Pilar Cubas, Ruud de Maagd, Michelle M. Epstein, Thomas Frenzel, Jean-Luc Gallois, Frits Koning, Antoine Messéan, F. Javier Moreno, Fabien Nogué, Giovanni Savoini, Alan H. Schulman, Christoph Tebbe, Eve Veromann, Andrea Gennaro, Aina Belen Gil Gonzalez, José Ángel Gómez Ruiz, Tilemachos Goumperis, Dafni Maria Kagkli, Paolo Lenzi, Aleksandra Lewandowska, Pietro Piffanelli, Reinhilde Schoonjans
Genetically modified Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 was developed to produce soy leghemoglobin by introducing the LGB2 coding sequence encoding leghemoglobin from soybean (Glycine max). The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not raise any safety concerns. The safety of soy leghemoglobin as a food additive has already been assessed by the EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA-Q-2022-00031). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of soy leghemoglobin protein as expressed in K. phaffii, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change its overall allergenicity. The GMO Panel concludes that the LegH Prep derived from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe for human consumption with regard to the effects of the genetic modification. No environmental impact from the use of this product is expected regarding the recombinant DNA sequences possibly remaining in the product. The GMO Panel concludes that LegH Prep from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment at the proposed use and use level as far as the impact of the genetic modification is concerned. The overall conclusion is that the genetic modification does not lead to safety issues.
通过引入编码大豆(Glycine max)豆血红蛋白的 LGB2 编码序列,开发了转基因 Komagataella phaffii 菌株 MXY0541,用于生产大豆豆血红蛋白。分子特征数据和生物信息学分析没有引起任何安全问题。大豆豆血红蛋白作为食品添加剂的安全性已由欧洲食品安全局 FAF 专家小组进行了评估(EFSA-Q-2022-00031)。转基因生物专家小组没有发现有关在 K. phaffii 中表达的大豆豆血红蛋白的毒性和过敏性的安全问题,也没有发现任何证据表明基因改造会改变其总体过敏性。转基因生物专家小组得出结论,从转基因 K. phaffii 菌株 MXY0541 中提取的 LegH 预制品,就转基因的影响而言,可供人类安全食用。对于产品中可能残留的重组 DNA 序列,预计使用该产品不会对环境造成影响。转基因生物专家小组得出结论,就转基因的影响而言,转基因 K. phaffii 菌株 MXY0541 的 LegH 预制品在拟议用途和使用水平上对人类健康和环境的潜在影响是安全的。总体结论是基因修饰不会导致安全问题。
{"title":"Assessment of soy leghemoglobin produced from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162)","authors":"EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Josep Casacuberta, Francisco Barro, Albert Braeuning, Pilar Cubas, Ruud de Maagd, Michelle M. Epstein, Thomas Frenzel, Jean-Luc Gallois, Frits Koning, Antoine Messéan, F. Javier Moreno, Fabien Nogué, Giovanni Savoini, Alan H. Schulman, Christoph Tebbe, Eve Veromann, Andrea Gennaro, Aina Belen Gil Gonzalez, José Ángel Gómez Ruiz, Tilemachos Goumperis, Dafni Maria Kagkli, Paolo Lenzi, Aleksandra Lewandowska, Pietro Piffanelli, Reinhilde Schoonjans","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Genetically modified <i>Komagataella phaffii</i> strain MXY0541 was developed to produce soy leghemoglobin by introducing the <i>LGB2</i> coding sequence encoding leghemoglobin from soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>). The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not raise any safety concerns. The safety of soy leghemoglobin as a food additive has already been assessed by the EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA-Q-2022-00031). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of soy leghemoglobin protein as expressed in <i>K. phaffii</i>, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change its overall allergenicity. The GMO Panel concludes that the LegH Prep derived from genetically modified <i>K. phaffii</i> strain MXY0541 is safe for human consumption with regard to the effects of the genetic modification. No environmental impact from the use of this product is expected regarding the recombinant DNA sequences possibly remaining in the product. The GMO Panel concludes that LegH Prep from genetically modified <i>K. phaffii</i> strain MXY0541 is safe with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment at the proposed use and use level as far as the impact of the genetic modification is concerned. The overall conclusion is that the genetic modification does not lead to safety issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9060","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-15DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.p221101
{"title":"Plain Language Summary of the re-evaluation of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954) as food additives","authors":"","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.p221101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.p221101","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.p221101","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-15DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9044
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Laurence Castle, Monica Andreassen, Gabriele Aquilina, Maria Lourdes Bastos, Polly Boon, Biagio Fallico, Reginald FitzGerald, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Bettina Grasl-Kraupp, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Rainer Gürtler, Eric Houdeau, Marcin Kurek, Henriqueta Louro, Patricia Morales, Sabina Passamonti, Monika Batke, Ellen Bruzell, James Chipman, Karlien Cheyns, Riccardo Crebelli, Cristina Fortes, Peter Fürst, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Jean-Charles LeBlanc, Manuela Mirat, Oliver Lindtner, Alicja Mortensen, Evangelia Ntzani, Romina Shah, Heather Wallace, Matthew Wright, Stefania Barmaz, Consuelo Civitella, Petra Georgelova, Federica Lodi, Elena Mazzoli, Josef Rasinger, Ana Maria Rincon, Alexandra Tard, Panagiota Zakidou, Maged Younes
This opinion deals with the re-evaluation of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954) as food additives. Saccharin is the chemically manufactured compound 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one-1,1-dioxide. Along with its sodium (Na), potassium (K) and calcium (Ca) salts, they are authorised as sweeteners (E 954). E 954 can be produced by two manufacturing methods i.e. Remsen-Fahlberg and Maumee. No analytical data on potential impurities were provided for products manufactured with the Maumee process; therefore, the Panel could only evaluate saccharins (E 954) manufactured with the Remsen-Fahlberg process. The Panel concluded that the newly available studies do not raise a concern for genotoxicity of E 954 and the saccharins impurities associated with the Remsen-Fahlberg manufacturing process. For the potential impurities associated with the Maumee process, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The data set evaluated consisted of animals and human studies. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and considered the decrease in body weight in animal studies as the relevant endpoint for the derivation of a reference point. An ADI of 9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as free imide, was derived for saccharins (E 954). This ADI replaces the ADI of 5 mg /kg bw per day (expressed as sodium saccharin, corresponding to 3.8 mg /kg bw per day saccharin as free imide) established by the Scientific Committee on Food. The Panel considered the refined brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario the most appropriate exposure scenario for the risk assessment. The Panel noted that the P95 exposure estimates for chronic exposure to saccharins (E 954) were below the ADI. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider the revision of the EU specifications of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954).
{"title":"Re-evaluation of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954) as food additives","authors":"EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Laurence Castle, Monica Andreassen, Gabriele Aquilina, Maria Lourdes Bastos, Polly Boon, Biagio Fallico, Reginald FitzGerald, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Bettina Grasl-Kraupp, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Rainer Gürtler, Eric Houdeau, Marcin Kurek, Henriqueta Louro, Patricia Morales, Sabina Passamonti, Monika Batke, Ellen Bruzell, James Chipman, Karlien Cheyns, Riccardo Crebelli, Cristina Fortes, Peter Fürst, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Jean-Charles LeBlanc, Manuela Mirat, Oliver Lindtner, Alicja Mortensen, Evangelia Ntzani, Romina Shah, Heather Wallace, Matthew Wright, Stefania Barmaz, Consuelo Civitella, Petra Georgelova, Federica Lodi, Elena Mazzoli, Josef Rasinger, Ana Maria Rincon, Alexandra Tard, Panagiota Zakidou, Maged Younes","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9044","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This opinion deals with the re-evaluation of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954) as food additives. Saccharin is the chemically manufactured compound 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one-1,1-dioxide. Along with its sodium (Na), potassium (K) and calcium (Ca) salts, they are authorised as sweeteners (E 954). E 954 can be produced by two manufacturing methods i.e. Remsen-Fahlberg and Maumee. No analytical data on potential impurities were provided for products manufactured with the Maumee process; therefore, the Panel could only evaluate saccharins (E 954) manufactured with the Remsen-Fahlberg process. The Panel concluded that the newly available studies do not raise a concern for genotoxicity of E 954 and the saccharins impurities associated with the Remsen-Fahlberg manufacturing process. For the potential impurities associated with the Maumee process, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The data set evaluated consisted of animals and human studies. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and considered the decrease in body weight in animal studies as the relevant endpoint for the derivation of a reference point. An ADI of 9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as free imide, was derived for saccharins (E 954). This ADI replaces the ADI of 5 mg /kg bw per day (expressed as sodium saccharin, corresponding to 3.8 mg /kg bw per day saccharin as free imide) established by the Scientific Committee on Food. The Panel considered the refined brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario the most appropriate exposure scenario for the risk assessment. The Panel noted that the P95 exposure estimates for chronic exposure to saccharins (E 954) were below the ADI. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider the revision of the EU specifications of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954).</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-15DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9092
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Giulia Bellisai, Giovanni Bernasconi, Luis Carrasco Cabrera, Irene Castellan, Monica del Aguila, Lucien Ferreira, Luna Greco, Samira Jarrah, Renata Leuschner, Andrea Mioč, Stefanie Nave, Hermine Reich, Silvia Ruocco, Alessia Pia Scarlato, Marta Szot, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Alessia Verani, Elena Zioga
In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food chain Safety and Environment submitted a request to the competent national authority in Belgium (evaluating Member State, EMS) to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance propamocarb in radishes for the residues occurring in radish roots and in small radish leaves (proposed to be classified under the subgroup of Roman rocket/rucola). The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for radishes and small radish leaves. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of propamocarb on the commodities under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short-term and long-term intake of residues resulting from the use of propamocarb according to the reported agricultural practice is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. The chronic consumer risk assessment shall be regarded as indicative since affected by uncertainty related to the data gaps identified in the MRL review.
{"title":"Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for propamocarb in radishes (roots and small leaves)","authors":"EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Giulia Bellisai, Giovanni Bernasconi, Luis Carrasco Cabrera, Irene Castellan, Monica del Aguila, Lucien Ferreira, Luna Greco, Samira Jarrah, Renata Leuschner, Andrea Mioč, Stefanie Nave, Hermine Reich, Silvia Ruocco, Alessia Pia Scarlato, Marta Szot, Anne Theobald, Manuela Tiramani, Alessia Verani, Elena Zioga","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9092","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food chain Safety and Environment submitted a request to the competent national authority in Belgium (evaluating Member State, EMS) to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance propamocarb in radishes for the residues occurring in radish roots and in small radish leaves (proposed to be classified under the subgroup of Roman rocket/rucola). The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for radishes and small radish leaves. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of propamocarb on the commodities under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short-term and long-term intake of residues resulting from the use of propamocarb according to the reported agricultural practice is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. The chronic consumer risk assessment shall be regarded as indicative since affected by uncertainty related to the data gaps identified in the MRL review.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"22 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9092","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}