Risk-Benefit Assessment of Feed Additives in the One Health Perspective

Abstract

Safety and sustainability of animal feeds is a pillar of the safety of the entire food chain. Feed additive assessment incorporates consumer safety as well as animal health and welfare, which, in turn, can affect productivity and hence food security. The safety of feed users and the environment are other important components of the assessment process which, therefore, builds on a One Health perspective. In several instances the assessment entails a balanced assessment of benefits and risks for humans, animals and/or the environment. Three case studies are selected to discuss issues for a consistent framework on Risk-Benefit Assessment (RBA) of feed additives, based on EFSA opinions and literature: (a) Supplementation of feeds with trace elements with recognized human toxicity (cobalt, iodine) - RBA question: can use levels, hence human exposure, be reduced without increasing the risk of deficiency in animals?; (b) Aflatoxin binders in dairy animals - RBA question: can the use reduce the risk for human health due to aflatoxin M1, without unexpected adverse effects for animals or humans?; (c) Use of formaldehyde as preservative in feedstuffs to prevent microbial contamination - RBA question: is the reduction of microbiological risks outweighed by risks for the consumers, farmed animals or the workers? The case studies indicate that the safety of use of feed additives can involve RBA considerations which fit into a One Health perspective. As in other RBA circumstances, the main issues are defining the question and finding “metrics” that allow a R/B comparison; in the case of feed additives, R and B may concern different species (farm animals and humans). A robust assessment of animal requirements, together with sustainability considerations, might be a significant driving force for a RBA leading to a safe and effective use.

Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Depressive Symptoms in a Mediterranean Cohort

“…The promotion of inflammatory processes associated with the consumption of UPFs may potentially affect the functioning of common neuronal signaling systems (i.e., serotonergic and dopaminergic systems) and of certain brain regions (i.e., amygdala) implicated in mental health disorders [ 55 ]. Some additives may contain nanoparticles that exert higher toxicity when compared to the bulk material because they are absorbed, cross various biological barriers, and may accumulate in tissues and organs [ 56 ]. These compounds may have direct interactions at the cellular level, exerting local toxicity by increasing the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species production, inducing mitochondrial and DNA oxidation, and activating pro-inflammatory cellular pathways [ 57 ].…”

Importance of Nano-Sized Feed Additives in Animal Nutrition

“…The main reasons for the use of feed additives are protecting animal health, increasing productivity, increasing the nutritional content of feeds, preserving the quality of nutrients and feed, as well as giving a certain form to feeds. Integrated into feed formulation and production processes, these additives are strategically used in the animal feed industry to contribute to the healthy growth and development processes of animals and to optimize production efficiency (Mantovani et al, 2022).…”

Probiotics Addition Potential to Increase Body Weight, Feed Consumption and Feed Conversion on Pre-Layer Laying Hens

“…Quality feed is needed to support optimal livestock performance. One of the efforts to improve feed quality is by adding additives to the feed (Mantovani et al, 2022). In general, the addition of feed additives can be in the form of antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, enzymes, organic acids, phytobiotics or plant bioactives and essential oils (Magdalena et al, 2014).…”