Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 59, Revision 1 (FGE.59Rev1): Consideration of aliphatic and aromatic ethers evaluated by JECFA (61st meeting and 63rd meeting) structurally related to aliphatic, alicyclic and aromatic ethers including anisole derivatives evaluated by EFSA in FGE.23 Rev2 (2010)

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from the flowering stems of Salvia sclarea L. (clary sage oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh or dried flowering stems of Salvia sclarea L. (clary sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacers), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, 10 mg/kg for horses, 20 mg/kg for dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 8 mg/kg for laying hens, 7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 9 mg/kg for piglets, 11 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 14 mg/kg for sows, 13 mg/kg for dairy cows, 8 mg/kg for rabbits and 4 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 4 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water of clary sage oil 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. The use of clary sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering stems of S. sclarea is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil derived from the flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of a tincture derived from the leaves of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus tincture) for all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the leaves of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus tincture) when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 1.86%, which contains on average 0.454% phenolic acids and flavonoids (of which 0.280% was gallic acid), 0.0030% 1,8-cineole and 0.00012% methyleugenol. In the absence of analytical data on the occurrence of mono- or diformylated adducts of acylphloroglucinols with terpenes in the tincture and in the absence of toxicity data, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the use of eucalyptus tincture for long-living and reproductive animals. For short-living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at 4 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 6 mg/kg for piglets and rabbits for meat production, 7 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 14 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses for fattening, and 15 mg/kg for salmonids. These levels were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of eucalyptus tincture up to the levels in feed considered of no concern. Eucalyptus tincture should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of eucalyptus tincture as a flavour in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of E. globulus and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil, also known as turpentine oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 35 mg/kg for laying hens, piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, rabbits, salmonids, 50 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horses, dogs and ornamental fish, 20 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 25 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 33 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 14 mg/kg for ornamental birds. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 20 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of pine white oil up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of pine white oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Pine white oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of feed additives consisting of expressed lemon oil and its fractions from Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck and of lime oil from Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

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 expressed lemon oil and distilled lemon oil from Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck and lime oil from Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. The use of the expressed lemon oil and its residual fraction and the use of lime oil in feed is not expected to increase the exposure to furocoumarins and methoxycoumarins and perillaldehyde of those target species that are already fed citrus by-products a relevant extent (< 10%). For companion animals and ornamental fish not normally exposed to citrus by-products, no conclusion can be drawn. For the other species and for the distilled fraction of expressed lemon oil, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additives under assessment are safe at the maximum proposed or at reduced use levels in complete feed. The Panel considers 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 additives at the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. Since expressed lemon oil and its fractions contain furocoumarins, they may cause phototoxicity. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions of use in animal feed is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. limon and C. aurantiifolia and their preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.