Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of phenyl ethyl alcohols, phenylacetic acids, related esters, phenoxyacetic acids and related esters (chemical group 15) when used as flavourings for all animal species

,

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2625

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a number of compounds, 2-methyl- -isopropyl-4-methylthiazole [15.026] in CG 29, the FEEDAP Panel identified a potential concern for the use in marine aquaculture (sea cages) at the use levels considered safe for the target species and estimated a safe level of 0.05 mg/kg feed (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012b,f, 2016b.…”

Section: Safety For the Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In previous opinions of the FEEDAP Panel (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012b-f, 2013, 2016a-d, 2019a,b, 2020, the 31 additives under assessment were fully characterised and evaluated for their safety and efficacy as flavouring substances. For one compound, a-damascone [07.134], the FEEDAP Panel was unable to conclude on the safety because of the inconclusive assessment of its genotoxicity (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2020).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The safety for the consumer of the remaining 30 compounds used as food flavours has been already assessed by JECFA and EFSA as described in the former opinions of the FEEDAP Panel (EFSA FEEDAP Panel 2012b,c,d,e,f, 2013, 2016a,b,c,d, 2019a. All compounds are currently authorised in the EU as food flavourings without limitations.…”

Section: Safety For the Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This mixture covers 31 compounds under assessment, belonging to several chemical groups (CGs), namely CG 1,2,3,6,8,9,15,20,21,26,29 and 31, when used as a feed flavourings for all animal species which were assessed by the FEEDAP Panel (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012b-f, 2013, 2016a-d, 2019a,b, 2020. 2.…”

Section: Additional Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Safety of 31 flavouring compounds belonging to different chemical groups when used as feed additives for all animal species

Additives¹,

Bampidis²,

Azimonti³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 31 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Twenty‐two out of the 31 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. For the remaining nine compounds, read across from structurally similar compounds was proposed. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 22 compounds are safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species for all the compounds except for α‐damascone [07.134]. In the absence of data that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to rule out the genotoxicity concern, the FEEDAP Panel cannot extend the conclusions for α‐damascone [07.134] to all animal species and cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer, the user and the environment. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the remaining 30 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. The revised maximum safe levels for the 30 compounds are not expected to further impact on the previous conclusions on user safety. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds except β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], for which in the absence of ecotoxicity data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the terrestrial compartments. For the marine environment, the safe use level for 2‐methyl‐1‐phenylpropan‐2‐ol [02.035], α‐irone [07.011], β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], phenethyl isovalerate [09.466], 4‐(p‐hydroxyphenyl) butan‐2‐one [07.055] and 2‐isopropyl‐4‐methylthiazole [15.026] is confirmed to be 0.05 mg/kg.

show abstract

Section: Safety For the Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety For the Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Additional Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety of 31 flavouring compounds belonging to different chemical groups when used as feed additives for all animal species

Additives¹,

Bampidis²,

Azimonti³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the tolerance studies were started in October 2016, over a 3‐year planning, they were designed to follow the provisions present in the guidance on sensory additives (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012a , b , c , d , e , f , g ), which was in place at that time. The FEEDAP Panel exceptionally accepts the approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of 41 flavouring compounds providing a herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups for use as feed additives in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis,

Azimonti,

Bastos

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.

show abstract

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis¹,

Azimonti²,

Bastos³

et al. 2022

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA 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 an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits, 2 mg/kg for piglets, 2.5 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3 mg/kg for sows, 4.5 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), fish, dogs and ornamental fish. For cats, the calculated safe concentration in complete feed is 1 mg/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Ylang ylang oil is recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

show abstract

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of phenyl ethyl alcohols, phenylacetic acids, related esters, phenoxyacetic acids and related esters (chemical group 15) when used as flavourings for all animal species

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Safety of 31 flavouring compounds belonging to different chemical groups when used as feed additives for all animal species

Safety of 31 flavouring compounds belonging to different chemical groups when used as feed additives for all animal species

Safety of 41 flavouring compounds providing a herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups for use as feed additives in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About