Assessment of the feed additive consisting of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Novus Europe S.A./N.V.)
2021
EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) | Vasileios Bampidis | Giovanna Azimonti | Maria de Lourdes Bastos | Henrik Christensen | Birgit Dusemund | Mojca Fašmon Durjava | Maryline Kouba | Marta López‐Alonso | Secundino López Puente | Francesca Marcon | Baltasar Mayo | Alena Pechová | Mariana Petkova | Fernando Ramos | Yolanda Sanz | Roberto Edoardo Villa | Ruud Woutersen | Rosella Brozzi | Jaume Galobart | Lucilla Gregoretti | Matteo L. Innocenti | Maria Vittoria Vettori | Gloria López‐Gálvez
Abstract The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of authorisation of copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex®Cu) for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel has delivered two opinions (in 2008 and 2009) on the safety and efficacy of the additive. The additive was authorised in 2010 as ‘Copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine’ containing 18% copper, 79.5−81% (2‐hydroxy‐4‐methylthio)butanoic acid (DL‐methionine hydroxy analogue, HMTBa) and 1% mineral oil. Following some modifications in the manufacturing process, the additive does not contain mineral oil and the applicant proposes the following specifications: ≥ 16% copper and ≥ 78% HMTBa. The data provided indicate that the additive complies with the new specifications. No new evidence was found that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering its previous conclusions on the safety for target species, consumers and environment. The applicant provided new studies on the effects of the additive on the respiratory tract and on skin and eyes. Data on the characterisation of the additive and the new studies on skin/eyes led the Panel to reconsider the safety for the user. Mintrex®Cu is considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser; the risk of respiratory sensitisation is considered low. The present application did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive; therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Show more [+] Less [-]AGROVOC Keywords
Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by Directory of Open Access Journals