Prediction of carcinogenic potential of chemicals using repeated-dose (13-week) toxicity data

AbstractSub-chronic toxicity studies of 163 non-genotoxic chemicals were evaluated in order to predict the tumour outcome of 24-month rat carcinogenicity studies obtained from the EFSA and ToxRef databases. Hundred eleven of the 148 chemicals that did not induce putative preneoplastic lesions in the sub-chronic study also did not induce tumours in the carcinogenicity study (True Negatives). Cellular hypertrophy appeared to be an unreliable predictor of carcinogenicity. The negative predictivity, the measure of the compounds evaluated that did not show any putative preneoplastic lesion in de sub-chronic studies and were negative in the carcinogenicity studies, was 75%, whereas the sensitivity, a measure of the sub-chronic study to predict a positive carcinogenicity outcome was only 5%. The specificity, the accuracy of the sub-chronic study to correctly identify non-carcinogens was 90%. When the chemicals which induced tumours generally considered not relevant for humans (33 out of 37 False Negatives) are classified as True Negatives, the negative predictivity amounts to 97%. Overall, the results of this retrospective study support the concept that chemicals showing no histopathological risk factors for neoplasia in a sub-chronic study in rats may be considered non-carcinogenic and do not require further testing in a carcinogenicity study

Effects of orchiectomy, alone or in combination with testosterone, and cyproterone acetate on exocrine pancreatic carcinogenesis in rats and hamsters

The results of a previous 4-mo study in azaserine-treated rats and BOP-treated hamsters indicated that orchiectomy inhibited pancreatic growth and development of putative preneoplastic lesions in the exocrine pancreas of rats but not hamsters. This 12-mo study was carried out to investigate the effects of orchiectomy, alone and in combination with testosterone, and of treatment with cyproterone acetate on pancreatic carcinogenesis in azaserine-treated rats and BOP-treated hamsters. Treatment started 4 mo after injection of the carcinogen. In orchiectomized rats, pancreatic wt was lower than in controls, whereas pancreatic wt of orchiectomized rats treated with testosterone was similar to that of controls. Both orchiectomy and cyproterone acetate caused a decrease in body wt gain and had an inhibitory effect on pancreatic carcinogenesis. Testosterone treatment did not influence the inhibitory effects of orchiectomy on body wt gain and on pancreatic carcinogenesis. In hamsters, neither orchiectomy, alone or in combination with testosterone, nor cyproterone acetate (CA) affected pancreatic growth or pancreatic carcinogenesis. This study indicates that testosterone plays a minor role in the development of pancreatic tumors induced in rats by azaserine but not in that of pancreatic tumors induced in hamsters by BOP

Bioavailability and biodistribution of differently charged polystyrene nanoparticles upon oral exposure in rats

The likelihood of oral exposure to nanoparticles (NPs) is increasing, and it is necessary to evaluate the oral bioavailability of NPs. In vitro approaches could help reducing animal studies, but validation against in vivo studies is essential. Previously, we assessed the translocation of 50 nm polystyrene NPs of different charges (neutral, positive and negative) using a Caco-2/HT29-MTX in vitro intestinal translocation model. The NPs translocated in a surface charge-dependent manner. The present study aimed to validate this in vitro intestinal model by an in vivo study. For this, rats were orally exposed to a single dose of these polystyrene NPs and the uptake in organs was determined. A negatively charged NP was taken up more than other NPs, with the highest amounts in kidney (37.4 µg/g tissue), heart (52.8 µg/g tissue), stomach wall (98.3 µg/g tissue) and small intestinal wall (94.4 µg/g tissue). This partly confirms our in vitro findings, where the same NPs translocated to the highest extent. The estimated bioavailability of different types of NPs ranged from 0.2 to 1.7 % in vivo, which was much lower than in vitro (1.6–12.3 %). Therefore, the integrated in vitro model cannot be used for a direct prediction of the bioavailability of orally administered NPs. However, the model can be used for prioritizing NPs before further in vivo testing for risk assessment. © 2015, The Author(s)

Safety of the fermentation product of Aspergillus oryzae NRRL 458 (Amaferm®) as a feed additive for dairy cows (Biozyme Inc.)

[EN] Amaferm® is a fermentation product produced by Aspergillus oryzae NRRL 458, containing alpha-amylase and cellulase enzyme activities, authorised for use as a feed additive for dairy cows. In 2016, the applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation and the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion at that regard in 2020. In that opinion, the Panel could not confirm the previously drawn conclusions (EFSA, 2006) regarding the safety of the production strain, and consequently could not confirm the safety of the additive for the target species and consumers. In the current submission, the applicant provided supplementary information that allowed the Panel to conclude on the identity of the production strain, redefine the specifications of the additive, and finally to conclude on its safety. Therefore, the new data provided permit to conclude that Amaferm® complies with the conditions of the authorisation. However, the Panel noted that there is the need to change the specification and description of the cellulase and amylase units in the authorisation act. The data provided in the previous (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2020) and the current assessments support that Amaferm® remains safe under the approved conditions for target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is non-irritant to skin and eyes, or a dermal sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser.SIThe Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output (in alphabetical order of the last name): Working Group on Animal Nutrition and Working Group on Microbiology, Rosella Brozzi, Christina Cuomo and Jordi Tarres Call

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus velezensis PTA‐6507, B. velezensis NRRL B‐50013 and B. velezensis NRRL B‐50104 (Enviva® PRO 202 GT) for turkeys for fattening (Danisco Animal Nutrition)

[EN]Following a request from the European Commission, the 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 the additive consisting of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-6507, B. amyloliquefaciens NRRL B-50013 and B. amyloliquefaciens NRRL B-50104 (trade name: Enviva® PRO 202 GT) for turkeys for fattening. The product under assessment is based on viable spores of three strains originally identified as B. amyloliquefaciens which, in the course of the current assessment, were reclassified as Bacillus velezensis. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agents was established. The active agents do not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes and lack toxigenic potential and the capacity to produce aminoglycosides. Following the QPS approach, the three bacterial strains are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, Enviva® PRO 202 GT is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Enviva® PRO 202 GT is non-irritant to skin and eyes and is not a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In a previous opinion, it was concluded that Enviva® PRO 202 GT has a potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the recommended level of 7.5 × 107 CFU/kg complete feed. It is considered that conclusions on efficacy of Enviva® PRO 202 GT in chickens for fattening can be extrapolated to turkeys for fattening. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Enviva® PRO 202 GT has the potential to be efficacious in turkeys for fattening at 7.5 × 107 CFU/kg complete feed.S

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of lactic acid produced by Weizmannia coagulans (synonym Bacillus coagulans) DSM 32789 for all animal species except for fish (Jungbunzlauer SA)

©2022EuropeanFoodSafetyAuthority.EFSAJournalpublishedbyWiley-VCHGmbHonbehalfofEuropeanFoodSafetyAuthority.[EN] Following a request from the European Commission, the 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 lactic acid produced by a non-genetically modified strain of Weizmannia coagulans (synonym of Bacillus coagulans) (DSM 32789) for all animal species except for fish. The production strain qualifies for the QPS approach for safety assessment. Although uncertainty remains concerning the possible presence of viable cells and/or spores of the production strain in the final product, this does not raise safety concerns for the target species, humans and the environment. The lactic acid is safe at 50,000 mg/kg complete feed for functional ruminants and pigs and at 20,000 mg/kg feed for all the other animal species and categories except for pre-ruminants for which a safe level cannot be established. The corresponding safe levels in water for drinking would be 15,000 mg/L water for pigs and 8,000 mg/L for other non-ruminant species. Although no safe concentration of lactic acid in water for drinking for ruminants can be derived, the Panel considers that the use in water for drinking is safe in ruminants when 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 under assessment in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. It is considered corrosive to the skin, eyes and mucous membranes. Lactic acid is used in food as a preservative. It is reasonable to expect that the effect seen in food will be observed in feed when it is used at comparable concentrations and conditions. However, the FEEDAP Panel has reservations about its effectiveness as a preservative in complete feed with a moisture content of ≤ 12%.SIThe Panel wishes to acknowledge the contribution to this opinion of Martina Reitano, Joana Revez, the experts of the Microbiology and of the Animal Nutrition Working Groups of the FEEDAP Panel

Assessment of the efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32203 for dogs (NBF LANES)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32203 as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32203 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for dogs at a minimum use level of 6 x 10(9) colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32203 for dogs. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive to dogs. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that L. reuteri DSM 32203 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from dogs receiving the additive at 1 x 10(10) CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel has some reservations on the effects in the moisture content of stools, which if maintained over time might cast doubts on the benefits on the long-term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a feed additive for cats (NBF Lanes s.r.l.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of a product consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a zootechnical additive for cats. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32264 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for cats at a minimum inclusion level of 6 9 109 colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32264 for cats. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive for cats. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that L. reuteri DSM 32264 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from cats receiving the additive at 1 9 1010 CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel had some reservations on the effects in the moisture content, which if maintained overtime, might cast doubts on the benefits on the long-term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) IMI 507023 for all animal species (ALL‐TECHNOLOGY (IRELAND) LIMITED [Alltech Ireland])

[EN]Following a request from the European Commission, the 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 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) IMI 507023 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony-forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. rhamnosus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.S