In vivo validation of the unified BARGE method to assess the bioaccessibility of arsenic antimony, cadmium and lead in soils

The relative bioavailability of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, and lead for the ingestion pathway was measured in 16 soils contaminated by either smelting or mining activities using a juvenile swine model. The soils contained 18 to 25 000 mg kg–1 As, 18 to 60 000 mg kg–1 Sb, 20 to 184 mg kg–1 Cd, and 1460 to 40 214 mg kg–1 Pb. The bioavailability in the soils was measured in kidney, liver, bone, and urine relative to soluble salts of the four elements. The variety of soil types, the total concentrations of the elements, and the range of bioavailabilities found were considered to be suitable for calibrating the in vitro Unified BARGE bioaccessibility method. The bioaccessibility test has been developed by the BioAccessibility Research Group of Europe (BARGE) and is known as the Unified BARGE Method (UBM). The study looked at four end points from the in vivo measurements and two compartments in the in vitro study (“stomach” and “stomach and intestine”). Using benchmark criteria for assessing the “fitness for purpose” of the UBM bioaccessibility data to act as an analogue for bioavailability in risk assessment, the study shows that the UBM met criteria on repeatability (median relative standard deviation value 0.6) for As, Cd, and Pb. The data suggest a small bias in the UBM relative bioaccessibility of As and Pb compared to the relative bioavailability measurements of 3% and 5% respectively. Sb did not meet the criteria due to the small range of bioaccessibility values found in the samples

Safety and efficacy of a preparation of algae interspaced bentonite as a feed additive for all animal species

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a preparation of algae interspaced bentonite when used as a flatoxin B1 binder for all animal species. The additive is composed of bentonite and algae belonging to Ulva spp. The additive is considered safe for weaned piglets, dairy cows and chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended dose of 125 mg/kg complete feed (a wide margin of safety is established in weaned piglets and dairy cows); this conclusion is extrapolated to all animal species. The additive is not genotoxic. As bentonite is essentially not absorbed from the gut lumen and algae from Ulva spp. are not expected to be of concern for human consumption, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the additive in animal nutrition is safe for consumers. The additive is not an irritant to the skin or the eyes and it is considered to have low inhalation toxicity. However, the additive has a high dusting potential and contains a high proportion offine particles. A high level of inhalation exposure to an inert dust may be hazardous. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on dermal sensitisation. As the components of the additive are of natural origin (soil and marine environment), it is not expected that the use of the additive in animal nutrition would adversely affect the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all animal species

Safety and efficacy of a preparation of algae interspaced bentonite as a feed additive for all animal species

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a preparation of algae interspaced bentonite when used as aflatoxin B1 binder for all animal species. The additive is composed of bentonite and algae belonging to Ulva spp. The additive is considered safe for weaned piglets, dairy cows and chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended dose of 125 mg/kg complete feed (a wide margin of safety is established in weaned piglets and dairy cows); this conclusion is extrapolated to all animal species. The additive is not genotoxic. As bentonite is essentially not absorbed from the gut lumen and algae from Ulva spp. are not expected to be of concern for human consumption, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the additive in animal nutrition is safe for consumers. The additive is not an irritant to the skin or the eyes and it is considered to have low inhalation toxicity. However, the additive has a high dusting potential and contains a high proportion of fine particles. A high level of inhalation exposure to an inert dust may be hazardous. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on dermal sensitisation. As the components of the additive are of natural origin (soil and marine environment), it is not expected that the use of the additive in animal nutrition would adversely affect the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all animal species

Coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

The EFSA performs environmental risk assessment (ERA) for single potential stressors such as plantprotection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives, and for invasive alien speciesthat are harmful to plant health. This ERA focusses primarily on the use or spread of such potentialstressors in an agricultural context, but also considers the impact on the wider environment. It isimportant to realise that the above potential stressors in most cases contribute a minor proportion ofthe total integrated pressure that ecosystems experience. The World Wildlife Fund listed the relativeattribution of threats contributing to the declines in animal populations as follows: 37% fromexploitation (fishing, hunting, etc.), 31% habitat degradation and change, 13% from habitat loss, 7%from climate change, and only 5% from invasive species, 4% from pollution and 2% from disease. Inthis scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the extent of coverageof endangered species in current ERA schemes that fall under the remit of EFSA. The legal basis andthe relevant ecological and biological features used to classify a species as endangered areinvestigated. The characteristics that determine vulnerability of endangered species are reviewed.Whether endangered species are more at risk from exposure to potential stressors than other non-target species is discussed, but specific protection goals for endangered species are not given. Due toa lack of effect and exposure data for the vast majority of endangered species, the reliability of usingdata from other species is a key issue for their ERA. This issue and other uncertainties are discussedwhen reviewing the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes. Potential tools, such aspopulation and landscape modelling and trait-based approaches, for extending the coverage ofendangered species in current ERA schemes, are explored and reported

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) produced by Trichoderma reesei CBS 140027 as a feed additive for piglets (weaned), pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, laying hens, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species (Roal Oy)

[EN] Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ECONASE® XT (endo-1,4-β-xylanase) produced by a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 140027) as a zootechnical feed additive for piglets (weaned), pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, laying hens, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species. The recipient strain and the production strain T. reesei CBS 140027 are considered safe. The additive is safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum recommended doses (16,000 and 24,000 BXU/kg feed, respectively) with a wide margin of safety (100-fold and 50-fold, respectively). These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and to pigs for fattening at 16,000 and 24,000 BXU/kg feed, respectively. The additive is safe for turkeys for fattening or reared for breeding at 16,000 BXU/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for laying hens and for minor poultry species for laying at the proposed conditions of use. The information provided does not allow to conclude on the safety of the use of ECONASE XT® P/L produced by T. reesei CBS 140027 in animal nutrition for the consumers. The use of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition does not raise safety concerns for the environment. ECONASE® XT L is non-irritant to the skin or to the eyes. In absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the solid product to be irritant to skin and eyes and on the potential of the additive in all forms to be a dermal sensitiser. All forms of the additive should be considered as respiratory sensitisers. All forms of the additive are considered efficacious at the minimum recommended levels for the target speciesSIThe Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output (in alphabetical order of the last name): Konstantinos Sofianidi

Assessing the health status of managed honeybee colonies (HEALTHY-B): a toolbox to facilitate harmonised data collection

Tools are provided to assess the health status of managed honeybee colonies by facilitating further harmonisation of data collection and reporting, design of field surveys across the European Union (EU) and analysis of data on bee health. The toolbox is based on characteristics of a healthy managed honeybee colony: an adequate size, demographic structure and behaviour; an adequate production of bee products (both in relation to the annual life cycle of the colony and the geographical location); and provision of pollination services. The attributes ‘queen presence and performance’, ‘demography of the colony’, ‘in-hive products’ and ‘disease, infection and infestation’ could be directly measured in field conditions across the EU, whereas ‘behaviour and physiology’ is mainly assessed through experimental studies. Analysing the resource providing unit, in particular land cover/use, of a honeybee colony is very important when assessing its health status, but tools are currently lacking that could be used at apiary level in field surveys across the EU. Data on ‘beekeeping management practices’ and ‘environmental drivers’ can be collected via questionnaires and available databases, respectively. The capacity to provide pollination services is regarded as an indication of a healthy colony, but it is assessed only in relation to the provision of honey because technical limitations hamper the assessment of pollination as regulating service (e.g. to pollinate wild plants) in field surveys across the EU. Integrating multiple attributes of honeybee health, for instance, via a Health Status Index, is required to support a holistic assessment. Examples are provided on how the toolbox could be used by different stakeholders. Continued interaction between the Member State organisations, the EU Reference Laboratory and EFSA is required to further validate methods and facilitate the efficient use of precise and accurate bee health data that are collected by many initiatives throughout the EU

Mesure de la digestibilité des protéines par la méthode des différences porto-artérielles chez l’espèce porcine

This paper gives an overview of the current in vivo methods used to evaluate nutritional quality of proteins. It present in the first part methods used to assess digestibility of proteins, the interest and constraints of portal measurements and finally questions regarding digestive interactions between alimentary nitrogen and endogenous nitrogen are discussed. The second part of this paper is focused on the presentation of a study which was aimed to determine 15N porto-arterial kinetics after ingestion of 15N labelled milk, yogurt or heat treated yogurt. It indicates an original method which combines 15N isotope protein labelling and postprandial porto-arterial measurements in growing pigs. 15N portal absorption in the growing pig were performed after ingestion of uniformly (0.2509 APE) labelled 15N milk (M), yogurt (Y) and heat treated yogurt (HY). The highest porto-arterial differences of 15N were found in the period between 30 min and 90 min after ingestion. Main absorption of nitrogen from M and HY occurs during the 0-120 min time period (about 74% for M and 68% for HY). For Y, a larger displayed absorption period over the 0-240 min time period was observed. 15N absorption rate is close to 75% for each studied milk product, suggesting that M, Y and HY deliver nearly the same amounts of nitrogen to the organism. These results also indicate that major part of proteins are absorbed within the 240 min postprandial period