Open AccessSafety and efficacy of Capsozyme SB Plus (α‐galactosidase and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase) as a feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds
Author(s) -
Bampidis Vasileios,
Azimonti Giovanna,
Bastos Maria de Lourdes,
Christensen Henrik,
Dusemund Birgit,
Kos Durjava Mojca,
Kouba Maryline,
LópezAlonso Marta,
López Puente Secundino,
Marcon Francesca,
Mayo Baltasar,
Pechová Alena,
Petkova Mariana,
Ramos Fernando,
Sanz Yolanda,
Villa Roberto Edoardo,
Woutersen Ruud,
Cocconcelli Pier Sandro,
Glandorf Boet,
Herman Lieve,
Prieto Maradona Miguel,
Saarela Maria,
Anguita Montserrat
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6086
Subject(s) - feed additive , animal feed , biology , xylanase , genotoxicity , food science , genetically modified organism , toxicology , toxicity , mycotoxin , microbiology and biotechnology , enzyme , biochemistry , chemistry , broiler , organic chemistry , gene
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 Capsozyme SB Plus as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancers) for poultry species and ornamental birds. The additive contains two enzyme activities (α‐galactosidase and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase) and it is presented in solid form. The α‐galactosidase is produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus tubingensis and the xylanase is produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma longibrachiatum . Based on the results obtained in a tolerance trial performed in chickens for fattening, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species at the recommended levels. The mixture of the two enzyme concentrates that are used to formulate the additive, did not show any potential for a genotoxic effect in a bacterial reverse mutation assay and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. However, owing to the limitations identified in the subchronic oral toxicity study, the Panel could not conclude on the toxicological potential of the additive. No studies were submitted by the applicant to address the safety aspects related to the user. Therefore, the Panel could not conclude on the skin or eye irritation potential of the additive nor on its skin sensitisation potential. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the additive it should be regarded as a potential respiratory sensitiser, but the exposure is presumed to be limited due to the low dusting potential. The Panel considered that the product, used as feed additive, poses no risks to the environment and no further environmental risk assessment is required. The Panel considered a total of five efficacy trials, however, the limited evidence of the efficacy provided by those studies did not allow the Panel to conclude on the efficacy.