Environmental Impacts of Tartaric Stabilisation Processes for Wines using Electrodialysis and Cold Treatment

The environmental impacts of the two tartaric stabilisation methods used for wines, electrodialysis andcold treatment, were studied by determining water consumption (for the process and cleaning), wasteproduced (organic load and the composition of wastewater and residues) and energy consumption, atthe pilot stage and in wineries. Thanks to an online treatment of electrodialysis brines by reverse osmosis(industrial facility that treats 30 hL wine/h), the recycling of permeates led to a 65% reduction in waterconsumption, the volume of which represented only 3.9% of the wine treated. When washing and cleaningwater from the ED-RO system was taken into account, overall water consumption was 5.5 L/hL wine. Thepresence of ethanol, due to an osmotic phenomenon with no loss of wine volume, and tartaric acid in thebrines contributes to the organic load of the brine, with a COD of close to 8.4 g O2/L. Overall electricalenergy consumption for stabilisation by electrodialysis (0.21 kWh/hL) turned out to be eight times lowerthan that of cold stabilisation. An evaluation of cold stabilisation effluents revealed that 66.6% of the CODdischarged came from the diatomaceous earth (DE), 21.8% from the washing of the filter and 11.4% fromthe washing of the cold treatment tank. The production of used DE was 2.64 g (wet weight)/L of wine, andthe ethanol present in the DE waste represented a loss in wine volume of 0.14 L/hL

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Urea for ruminants

Urea supplementation to feed for ruminants provides non-protein nitrogen for microbial protein synthesis in the rumen and thus in part replaces other dietary protein sources. Urea supplementation of feed for ruminants at doses up to 1 % of complete feed DM (corresponding to 0.3 g/kg bw/day) is considered safe when given to animals with a well adapted ruminal microbiota and fed diets rich in easily digestible carbohydrates. Based on the metabolic fate of urea in ruminants, the use of urea in ruminant nutrition does not raise any concern for consumers\u2019 safety. Urea is considered to be non irritant to skin and eyes and its topical use suggests that it is not a dermal sensitiser. The risk of exposure by inhalation would be low. The substitution of protein by urea in well balanced feed for ruminants would not result in an increased environmental nitrogen load. Urea is an effective source of non-protein nitrogen substituting for dietary protein in ruminants

Safety and efficacy of a natural mixture of dolomite plus magnesite and magnesium-phyllosilicates (Fluidol) as feed additive for all animal species

The additive, a natural mixture of dolomite plus magnesite and magnesium-phyllosilicates, is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional groups: anticaking agents) in feedingstuffs for all animal species. The additive is safe in complete feed for dairy cows, piglets and pigs for fattening at a maximum concentration of 20,000 mg/kg. No conclusions can be drawn for all the other animal species/categories. The additive is not genotoxic. As the additive is essentially not absorbed from the gut lumen, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed considers that use of the additive in animal nutrition is safe for consumers of food products from animals fed diets containing the additive. The additive is not an irritant to the eyes and the skin, it is not a skin sensitiser and it is of low toxicity by the inhalation route. The components of the additive (dolomite, magnesite, talc and chlorite) are natural constituents of soil. Consequently, the use of the additive in animal nutrition will not pose a risk to the environment. The additive is effective as an anticaking agent at a minimum inclusion level of 5,000 mg/kg feed

Safety and efficacy of methylester of conjugated linoleic acid (t10,c12 isomer) for pigs for fattening, sows and cows

A mixture of methylated conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) isomers (t10,c12 and c9,t11) in equal proportions was not genotoxic and caused no reproductive toxicity. In a sub-acute study in dogs, a sub-chronic toxicity study in rats and a chronic study in dogs, no adverse effects were seen up to the highest levels tested. The maximum recommended feed concentration (5 g CLA (t10,c12)-ME from Lutalin (R)/kg feed for piglets, pigs for fattening and sows) or dose (30 g CLA (t10,c12)-ME from Lutrell (R) Pure/cow per day) is considered safe for target species. The CLA content of milk from cows treated with the highest recommended dose did not exceed background values (in milk of untreated cows) for both CLA isomers. An estimate of consumer exposure to both CLA isomers from food from pigs receiving 3 g of both CLA isomers/kg feed is <= 320 mg CLA isomers/person and day. This quantity corresponds to about 9% of the quantity considered safe for 6 months and is considered unlikely to raise concerns for consumer safety. Exposure of users by inhalation of the additive is likely to be minimal. Neither of the products under application, the liquid or the solid product, was tested as such for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation. The use of the additive in animal nutrition would not pose a risk to the environment. In pigs for fattening, CLA (t10,c12)-ME has a potential for improving feed to gain ratio. More consistent effects are a reduction in subcutaneous fat, an increase in intramuscular fat and fat firmness. No essential effects were found in sows. Administration of CLA to dairy cows reduces in a dose-dependent manner the fat content of milk, and milk fat yield. Energy balance in early lactation is improved by CLA (t10,c12)-ME; however, reproductive parameters were not influenced

Safety and efficacy of lactic acid and calcium lactate when used as technological additives for all animal species

This opinion concerns the re-authorisation of lactic acid and calcium lactate for use as preservatives in feed and a new authorisation for lactic acid as a preservative in water for drinking. The maximum level of 50 000 mg lactic acid/kg complete feed and 30 000 mg calcium lactate/kg complete feed are considered safe for functional ruminants and pigs. The maximum safe concentration in water for drinking for pigs can be derived from the maximum safe level in feed (15 000 mg lactic acid/L water). No conclusions on the safety of lactic acid in pre-ruminants and poultry can be drawn. These conclusions cannot be extrapolated to other animal species/categories. The use of lactic acid and calcium lactate as feed additives is safe for the consumer. Lactic acid is considered an irritant to eyes and skin and there is a risk of serious damage to the eyes. Inhalation of the mist causes irritation of the respiratory system. Calcium lactate should be considered an irritant to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract. It is likely that handling the additive will result in the production of respirable dust, which could present a risk to unprotected workers. The use of lactic acid and calcium lactate in animal nutrition would not pose a risk to the environment, provided that the concentrations regarded as safe for the target species are not exceeded. Lactic acid and calcium lactate are used in food as preservatives. It is reasonable to expect that the effect seen in food will be observed in feed when these additives are used at comparable concentrations and under similar conditions. However, the Panel has reservations about the effectiveness of lactic acid and calcium lactate as preservatives in complete feedingstuffs with a typical moisture content of <= 12 %

Safety and efficacy of L arginine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KCTC 10423BP for all animal species

L-Arginine is considered as a non-essential amino acid for most adult mammalian species, but it is classified as essential for birds, fish, possibly reptiles and also for strict carnivores. The following conclusions refer to L-arginine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KCTC 10423BP. The use of L-arginine is safe for target species when supplemented to diets in appropriate amounts. There are no safety concerns arising from ruminal L-arginine metabolism. The composition of edible tissues and products of animal origin will not be altered by the use of L-arginine in animal nutrition. Considering the high purity of the product under assessment, no risk is expected for the consumer from the use of L-arginine as a feed additive. L-Arginine is not irritating to skin or eyes and is not likely to be a skin sensitiser. Although there is a potential for user exposure by inhalation, there is evidence of no acute toxicity by the inhalation route. The use of L-arginine in animal nutrition would not pose a risk to the environment. Dietary L-arginine is an effective source of arginine for all animal species when a requirement exists. For the supplemental L-arginine to be fully efficacious in ruminants, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen

Safety and efficacy of B‐Act® (Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710) for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying

The additive B-Act\uae is a preparation containing viable spores of a strain of Bacillus licheniformis. The additive is intended for use in feed for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the proposed dose of 1.6 9 109 colony-forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuffs. B. licheniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach for establishing safety. As the identity of the active agent was established and the lack of toxigenic potential and resistance to antibiotics of human or veterinary clinical significance were demonstrated, the additive is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the skin/eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential. The dustiness of the preparations tested indicated a potential for users to be exposed via inhalation. B-Act\uae should be considered to have the potential to be a respiratory sensitiser. B-Act\uae at the recommended dose 1.6 9 109 CFU/kg feed has some potential to improve the feed to gain ratio of chickens for fattening. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying when used at the same dose. B. licheniformis DSM 28710 is compatible with decoquinate, diclazuril, halofuginone, nicarbazin, robenidine hydrochloride, lasalocid A sodium, maduramicin ammonium, monensin sodium, narasin and salinomycin sodium

Safety and efficacy of fumonisin esterase from Komagataella phaffii DSM 32159 as a technological feed additive for pigs and poultry

Fumonisin esterase produced from a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffi is intended to degrade fumonisin mycotoxins contaminants in feeds for pigs and poultry. The production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the final product. The applicant selected 300 U/kg feed to represent a likely upper limit. This concentration showed to be safe for piglets, chickens and turkeys for fattening and laying hens; the additive is thus safe for those categories. This conclusion is extended to all pigs, chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding and extrapolated to all other poultry species for growing and laying and to minor porcine species. No evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity was detected and no evidence of toxicity from a repeated-dose oral toxicity study; the residue assessment did not identify any concern. The use of the additive is, thus, considered safe for consumers. The additive is not toxic by inhalation and the respiratory exposure is likely to be low; however, a risk of sensitisation via the respiratory route cannot be excluded. The additive is non-irritant to skin and eyes and is not considered a dermal sensitiser. No risks for the environment are expected following the use of the additive in feeds under the proposed condition of use. The additive has the capacity to degrade fumonisin contaminants in feed of marketable quality when used at the minimum recommended dose of 10 U/kg complete feed, as shown in studies with chickens for fattening, laying hens and weaned piglets. Since the mode of action of the additive can be reasonably assumed to be the same in animal species for which the application is made, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considers the additive efficacious for all poultry and all pigs

Safety and efficacy of benzoic acid for pigs and poultry

The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked by the European Commission to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of benzoic acid as feed flavouring for piglets (suckling, weaned), pigs for fattening, sows (for reproduction, in order to have benefit in piglets), minor porcine species, chickens (for fattening, reared for laying), hens (laying, breeding), turkeys (for fattening, for breeding purposes, reared for breeding) and minor poultry species. Benzoic acid is safe for weaned piglets at 2,500 mg/kg feed, and for laying hens, turkeys and chickens for fattening at 500 mg/kg feed; no conclusions could be drawn for suckling piglets and sows. The conclusions on weaned piglets can be extended to pigs for fattening and extrapolated to growing minor porcine species. The conclusions on chickens/turkeys for fattening can be extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding and extrapolated to minor poultry species up to the point of lay. In the absence of safety margin in laying hens, no conclusions can be reached for minor poultry species for laying/breeding. The use of the additive is not expected to pose a risk to consumer, considering that the additive is rapidly metabolised with very low deposition, if any, in edible tissues of pigs and poultry and that foods of animal origin provide a very minor contribution, if any, to the overall dietary intake of benzoic acid. Owing to the unlikelihood of exposure, no risk to users upon inhalation of the additive is expected; the additive is not a skin sensitiser, but is a skin/ eye irritant. The proposed use of the additive does not pose environmental risks. Benzoic acid is authorised as food flavouring and its function in feed is essentially the same; no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary