Skip to main content
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2021 Apr 29;19(4):e06546. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6546

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium) for all growing poultry species (Kemin Europa NV)

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, Georges Bories, Francesco Cubadda, Kettil Svensson, Rosella Brozzi, Jaume Galobart, Lucilla Gregoretti, Matteo L Innocenti, Maria Vittoria Vettori, Gloria López‐Gálvez
PMCID: PMC8082166  PMID: 33968247

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium; KemTRACE‐Cr) as zootechnical feed additive for all growing poultry species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel was assigned to this mandate. Based on two tolerance studies submitted, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed from KemTRACE‐Cr, but a margin of safety cannot be established; this conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding, but cannot be extrapolated to other growing poultry species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition at the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer. No concerns for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive are expected; the additive was shown to be corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition according to the proposed conditions of use will not significantly alter the concentration in the receiving environmental compartments of concern; therefore, no safety concern is expected for the environment. Based on three efficacy studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that KemTRACE‐Cr has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed; this conclusion could be extended to chickens reared for laying and chickens reared for breeding, and extrapolated to other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding.

Keywords: zootechnical additives, other zootechnical additives, chromium propionate, KemTRACE™ Chromium, Safety, Efficacy, poultry

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor

Regulation (EC) No 1831/20031 establishes the rules governing the Community authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. In particular, Article 4(1) of that Regulation lays down that any person seeking authorisation for a feed additive or for a new use of a feed additive shall submit an application in accordance with Article 7.

The European Commission received a request from Kemin Europa NV2 for authorisation of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium), when used as a feed additive for all growing poultry species (category: zootechnical additives; functional group: other zootechnical additives).

According to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the Commission forwarded the application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as an application under Article 4(1) (authorisation of a feed additive or new use of a feed additive). The particulars and documents in support of the application were considered valid by EFSA as of 16 March 2020.

According to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, EFSA, after verifying the particulars and documents submitted by the applicant, shall undertake an assessment in order to determine whether the feed additive complies with the conditions laid down in Article 5. EFSA shall deliver an opinion on the safety for the target animals, consumer, user and the environment and on the efficacy of the product chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium), when used under the proposed conditions of use (see Section 3.1.5).

1.2. Additional information

The additive, a preparation containing chromium propionate (brand name: KemTRACE™ Chromium), is intended for use as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all growing poultry species. This feed additive is not authorised in the EU.

The FEEDAP Panel has delivered two scientific opinions on the safety and efficacy of chromium methionine, one as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (EFSA, 2009a) and another as a zootechnical additive (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2020) for dairy cows. In the former opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for target animals and consumers; concerning efficacy, the opinion reported availability of chromium from the additive, but no conclusions could be drawn regarding performance parameters. In the latter opinion, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Regarding other outputs, EFSA commissioned the University of Gent (Belgium) to carry out a literature review on selected trace and ultratrace elements, including chromium; this activity resulted in a report (Van Paemel et al., 2010).

The EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA Panel) delivered a scientific opinion on dietary reference values for chromium (EFSA NDA Panel, 2014a); the same Panel delivered an opinion on the substantiation of several health claims related to chromium (EFSA NDA Panel, 2010), and another opinion on a specific health claim (reduction of post‐prandial glycaemic responses) related to a combination of various amino acids and chromium picolinate (EFSA NDA Panel, 2014b).

The EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) delivered a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking water (EFSA CONTAM Panel, 2014).

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS Panel) has delivered several opinions on the safety of various chromium sources added for nutritional purposes to foodstuffs: trivalent chromium (EFSA ANS Panel, 2010a), a mixture of chromium di‐ and tri‐nicotinate (EFSA, 2008), chromium(III) (EFSA, 2009b), chromium picolinate (EFSA, 2009c; EFSA ANS Panel, 2010b), ChromoPrecise® cellular bound chromium yeast (EFSA ANS Panel, 2012a) and on chromium(III) lactate tri‐hydrate (EFSA, 2009d; EFSA ANS Panel, 2012b).

Four chromium compounds (chromium(III) chloride and its hexahydrate, chromium(III) sulfate and its hexahydrate, chromium picolinate and chromium(III) lactate tri‐hydrate) are listed as mineral substances which may be added to foods.3 Five chromium compounds (chromium(III) chloride, chromium(III) lactate trihydrate, chromium nitrate, chromium picolinate and chromium(III) sulfate) are listed as minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements, and four chromium compounds (chromium(III) chloride and its hexahydrate and chromium(III) sulfate and its hexahydrate) as mineral substances which may be added to foods.4

Three sources of chromium (chromium(III) chloride and its hexahydrate, chromium(III) sulfate and its hexahydrate and chromium picolinate) are authorised as food for special medical purposes and as total diet replacement for weight control.5

Chromium picolinate is authorised as a novel food in the EU.6

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data

The present assessment is based on data submitted by the applicant in the form of a technical dossier7 in support of the authorisation request for the use of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium), as a feed additive.

The FEEDAP Panel used the data provided by the applicant together with data from other sources, such as previous risk assessments by EFSA or other expert bodies, peer‐reviewed scientific papers, other scientific reports and experts’ elicitation knowledge, to deliver the present output.

EFSA has verified the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) report as it relates to the methods used for the control of the additive (KemTRACE chromium, chromium propionate) in animal feed. The Executive Summary of the EURL report can be found in Annex A;8 from this report the FEEDAP Panel notes that the following is signalled: ‘based on the available data, the EURL is not able to recommend for official control the proposed methods based on ICP‐AES or ICP‐MS, neither any other method for the quantification of the organic chromium content in premixtures and feedingstuffs’.

2.2. Methodologies

The approach followed by the FEEDAP Panel to assess the safety and the efficacy of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium) is in line with the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 429/20089 and the relevant guidance documents: Guidance on studies concerning the safety of use of the additive for users/workers (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012), Guidance on the identity, characterisation and conditions of use of feed additives (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017a), Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the target species (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017b), Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the consumer (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017c), Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2018), Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the environment (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2019).

3. Assessment

The additive KemTRACE™ Chromium contains ‘triaqua‐(μ3‐oxo)hexa(μ2‐propionato‐O,O’) trichromium(III) propionate’ as the active compound referred from here onwards as ‘chromium propionate’. The product is intended to be used as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives; claim: improvement of growth parameters and carcass traits) for all growing poultry species. The additive will be referred to in this scientific opinion as KemTRACE‐Cr. Unless otherwise indicated, chromium in the opinion refers to chromium(III).

3.1. Characterisation

3.1.1. Characterisation of the additive

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■15

■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■

3.1.2. Characterisation of the compound

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■

3.1.3. Manufacturing process

■■■■■

3.1.4. Stability and homogeneity

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Additionally, the Panel notes that the low recovery of the chromium propionate complex in mash and pelleted feed casts doubts regarding the stability of the complex, its potential degradation and the adequacy of the applied quantification analytical method (see Section 2.1 and Annex A).

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■

3.1.5. Conditions of use

The product is intended to be used in compound feed for all growing poultry species to provide a minimum of 0.2 and a maximum of 0.4 mg organic Cr/kg complete feed. The additive should be incorporated in feed via premixtures. The additive can be used during the complete life cycle of all growing poultry species without any withdrawal period.

The FEEDAP Panel notes that the proposed chromium supplementation rate from KemTRACE‐Cr falls within the background content of chromium in poultry feed (0.82−1.27 mg Cr/kg; data from Nicholson et al. (1999); Króliczewska et al. (2004) and Yildiz et al. (2004), reported in EFSA (2009a); Dai et al. (2016)).

3.2. Safety

The additive contains chromium propionate (29−32%), propionic acid (37%), sodium propionate (14−17%) and propylene glycol (2%). The FEEDAP Panel has assessed propionic acid and its salts, including sodium propionate (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2011). In the light of the outcome of that assessment, and considering that the total propionic acid added from the additive to the complete feed would be ca. 1.0 mg/kg, no safety concerns are expected for the propionic acid or the sodium propionate from the additive.

Propylene glycol is listed under Miscellaneous in the EU Catalogue of feed materials.35

3.2.1. Safety for the target species

The applicant provided two studies in chickens for fattening to support the safety for the target animals.

3.2.1.1. Study 1

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

3.2.1.2. Study 2

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

3.2.1.3. Conclusions on safety for the target species

The results from a tolerance trial in chickens for fattening showed no adverse effects of the addition of the additive up to the intended level of 4 mg chromium from KemTrace‐Cr/kg feed, which corresponded to an analysed value of 2.71 mg chromium/kg feed, indicated that the additive would be tolerated up to 6.8‐fold the maximum inclusion level. However, the data from another study in chickens for fattening showed an adverse effect on the performance of male chickens; this effect was seen with the addition of 2 mg Cr from KemTrace‐Cr/kg feed, which corresponded to an analysed value of 2.15 mg Cr/kg feed. These findings would cast some doubts on the safety of this supplemental level of chromium from KemTrace‐Cr in chickens for fattening.

Therefore, with the data available, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the highest inclusion level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed from KemTRACE‐Cr, but a margin of safety cannot be established. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying and reared for breeding, but cannot be extrapolated to other growing poultry species.

3.2.2. Safety for the consumer

3.2.2.1. Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME)

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

The additive under assessment contains an appreciable portion of propionic acid and sodium propionate. Propionic acid and its salts were already evaluated by EFSA FEEDAP Panel (2011). In that opinion, the fate of the compounds in the organism was considered: ‘Propionic acid and its salts are efficiently metabolised in the organism by entering different metabolic pathways, mainly the fatty acid and tricarboxylic acid pathways. When propionic acid (or its salts) is ingested by livestock and poultry, residues in meat, milk, or eggs are considered negligible, given that propionic acid is used by most organs and tissues and can be metabolised to carbohydrates, amino acids, and lipids’. Thus, in the organism, the complete degradation of propionic acid and sodium propionate present in the additive is expected.

3.2.2.2. Residue studies
3.2.2.2.1. Residue study 1

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

Owing to the large variation between the intended and analysed chromium levels in feed, and considering that neither the minimum nor the maximum recommended levels of chromium from the additive were reached, these data are not supportive of residue studies, and therefore cannot be considered for the risk assessment.

3.2.2.2.2. Residue study 2

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

3.2.2.3. Toxicological studies
3.2.2.3.1. Genotoxicity studies, including mutagenicity

■■■■■

3.2.2.3.1.1. Bacterial reverse mutation test

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the test item did not induce gene mutations in bacteria under the experimental conditions employed in this study.

3.2.2.3.1.2. In vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the test item did not induce chromosome damage in vitro in mammalian cells under the experimental conditions employed in this study.

3.2.2.3.1.3. In vitro mammalian gene mutation test

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the test item did not induce significant increase of mutation frequency in vitro in mammalian cells under the experimental conditions applied in the present study.

3.2.2.3.1.4. In vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■ The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the test item did not induce chromosome damage in vivo under the experimental conditions applied in the present study.

3.2.2.3.2. Repeated dose toxicity studies

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

3.2.2.3.2.1. 28‐day Study

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■

In view of the results observed, it can be stated that the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for KemTRACE‐Cr administered by oral gavage was found to be 1,000 mg/kg bw per day in Sprague Dawley rats under the experimental conditions of the present study, corresponding to 96 mg Cr/kg bw per day.

3.2.2.3.2.2. 90‐day Study

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■ Therefore, under the conditions of the study, the NOAEL for KemTRACE‐Cr could be determined as 500 mg/kg bw per day, corresponding to 48 mg Cr/kg bw per day.

3.2.2.3.3. Chronic oral toxicity study

■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■ the FEEDAP Panel considers the dose of 400 mg KemTRACE‐Cr/kg bw per day as the NOAEL, corresponding to 36 mg Cr/kg bw per day.

3.2.2.3.4. Carcinogenicity study

The applicant did not submit carcinogenicity studies performed with the additive under assessment.

3.2.2.3.5. Reproduction toxicity study

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■Therefore, 600 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, was considered the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) in the present two‐generation reproductive toxicity study, corresponding to 49 mg Cr/kg bw per day.

3.2.2.3.6. Conclusions on Toxicology

The FEEDAP Panel concludes that, based on the studies provided, KemTRACE‐Cr is not genotoxic or mutagenic. The Panel identified an NOAEL of 400 mg KemTRACE‐Cr/kg bw per day from the chronic toxicity study (up to 12 months) with Sprague Dawley rats as a reference point for the safety assessment of consumer exposure; this NOAEL corresponds to 36 mg Cr(III)/kg bw per day.

3.2.2.4. Assessment of consumer exposure and consumer safety assessment

The FEEDAP Panel performed an exposure assessment following the methodology described in the Guidance on consumer safety (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c) (Appendix A). ■■■■■

The residue values from the Residue study 2 (converted from ng/g to mg/g) were used as input data for the exposure calculation and are reported in Table 5. The results of the chronic exposure to chromium are reported in Table 6.

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

The FEEDAP Panel considers that the exposure in all the population groups is negligible.

An NOAEL of 400 mg KemTRACE‐Cr/kg bw per day (corresponding to 36 mg Cr(III)/kg bw per day) was identified based on a chronic toxicity study performed in rats. Based on the NOAEL and the highest estimated exposure (0.0003 mg Cr(III)/kg bw per day in infants and toddlers), the FEEDAP Panel calculated a margin of exposure (MOE) greater than 105 which was considered of no concern. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel does not consider necessary to set an ADI.

3.2.2.5. Conclusions on safety for the consumer

The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer.

3.2.3. Safety for user

3.2.3.1. Effect on respiratory system

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

The results of the study indicate that there would be no concern for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive. Furthermore, considering that the product is presented as liquid, exposure to users by the respiratory route is unlikely.

3.2.3.2. Effects on eyes and skin
3.2.3.2.1. Acute dermal irritation/corrosion study

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is non‐irritant to skin.71

3.2.3.2.2. Skin sensitisation

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ The results indicated that the additive can be considered a non‐sensitiser under the conditions of the test.

3.2.3.2.3. Acute eye irritation/corrosion study

■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■ indicating that KemTRACE‐Cr will induce irreversible effects upon ocular exposure.

3.2.3.3. Conclusions on safety for the user

On the basis of the studies submitted, no concerns for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive are expected; the additive was shown to be corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser.

3.2.4. Safety for the environment

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ the use of KemTRACE‐Cr will not significantly alter the concentration of chromium in the receiving environmental compartments of concern and will not pose an additional risk for the environment.

3.2.4.1. Conclusions on safety for the environment

The use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition according to the proposed conditions of use will not significantly alter the concentration of chromium in the receiving environmental compartments of concern. No concern for the environment is expected.

3.3. Efficacy

Three efficacy studies were provided by the applicant to examine the effects of the additive on the zootechnical parameters and carcass yield in chickens for fattening.

3.3.1. Efficacy studies in chickens for fattening

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■.

■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

■■■■■

3.3.2. Conclusions on efficacy

Based on the results of three studies in chickens for fattening from which positive effects in the performance and carcass traits were identified, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that KemTRACE‐Cr has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying and chickens reared for breeding, and extrapolated to other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding.

3.4. Post‐market monitoring

The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no need for specific requirements for a post‐market monitoring plan other than those established in the Feed Hygiene Regulation80 and Good Manufacturing Practice.

4. Conclusions

The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed from KemTRACE‐Cr, but a margin of safety cannot be established. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding, but cannot be extrapolated to other growing poultry species.

The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer.

No concerns for users following any inhalation exposure during the handling of the additive are expected; the additive was shown to be corrosive to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser.

The use of KemTRACE‐Cr in animal nutrition according to the proposed conditions of use will not significantly alter the concentration in the receiving environmental compartments of concern. No safety concern for the environment is expected.

The FEEDAP Panel concludes that KemTRACE‐Cr has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening at the supplementation level of 0.4 mg Cr/kg feed. This conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying and chickens reared for breeding, and extrapolated to other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding.

5. Documentation as provided to EFSA/Chronology

Date Event
27/11/2019 Dossier received by EFSA. Chromium Propionate: All growing poultry species. Submitted by Kemin Europa N.V.
12/12/2019 Reception mandate from the European Commission
16/03/2020 Application validated by EFSA – Start of the scientific assessment
28/05/2020 Request of supplementary information to the applicant in line with Article 8(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 – Scientific assessment suspended. Issues: characterisation, safety for the target species, safety for the consumer, efficacy.
16/06/2020 Comments received from Member States
01/07/2020 Reception of supplementary information from the applicant ‐ Scientific assessment re‐started
01/07/2020 Reception of spontaneous information from the applicant – Safety for the users
14/07/2020 Reception of the Evaluation report of the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives
17/07/2020 Request of supplementary information to the applicant in line with Article 8(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 – Scientific assessment suspended. Issues: characterisation.
27/07/2020 Clarification teleconference during risk assessment with the applicant according to the “EFSA's Catalogue of support initiatives during the life‐cycle of applications for regulated products”
18/08/2020 Reception of supplementary information from the applicant ‐ Scientific assessment re‐started
07/09/2020 Request of supplementary information to the applicant in line with Article 8(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 – Scientific assessment suspended. Issues: characterisation.
14/09/2020 Reception of supplementary information from the applicant ‐ Scientific assessment re‐started
16/09/2020 Request of supplementary information to the applicant in line with Article 8(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 – Scientific assessment suspended. Issues: safety for target animals, efficacy.
08/10/2020 Reception of supplementary information from the applicant ‐ Scientific assessment re‐started
18/03/2021 Opinion adopted by the FEEDAP Panel. End of the Scientific assessment

Glossary

In the context of the Dossier KemTRACE‐Cr, the following definitions are used:

Chromium (III) or Cr(III)

In the additive and premixture (KemTRACE‐Cr) described in the current dossier, the trivalent chromium Cr(III), is exclusively bound to propionate.

Organic Chromium

In feed samples, Cr(III) is bound to organic carriers (including under the form chromium propionate) or chelating ligands naturally found in this matrix. Referring to the latter, the applicant uses the term organic chromium.

Elemental Chromium

In the dossier, the term ‘elemental chromium’ refers to chromium (either bound or unbound)

Abbreviations

ADI

average daily intake

AME

apparent metabolisable energy

ANOVA

analysis of variance

ANS

EFSA Scientific Panel on Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food

bw

body weight

CONTAM

The EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain

CP

crude protein

CV

coefficient of variation

EURL

European Union Reference Laboratory

FEEDAP

The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed

FOB

neurological observations

GEF

global evaluation factor

GHS

globally harmonised system (of classification & labelling chemicals)

GIT

upper gastrointestinal tract

GLP

good laboratory practice

ICP‐AES

inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy

ICP‐MS

inductively coupled plasma‐mass spectrometry

LC‐HRMS

liquid chromatography high resolution mass spectrometry

LD

lethal dose

LOD

limit of detection

MCH

mean corpuscular haemoglobin

MCHC

mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration

MCV

mean corpuscular volume

MF

mutant frequency

MNC

mononuclear cells

MOE

margin of exposure

NCE

normochromatic erythrocytes

NDA

The EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies

NOAEL

no observed adverse effect level

OECD

organization for economic co‐operation and development

PCE

polychromatic erythrocytes

PCV

packed cell volume

PMN

polymorphonuclear cells

RBC

red blood cells count

SEM

pooled standard errors

UHPLC‐HRMS

ultra‐high-performance liquid chromatography‐high-resolution mass spectrometry

UHPLC‐MS

ultra‐high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectroscopy

WBC

white blood cell

WHO

World Health Organization

Appendix A – Calculation of consumer exposure

1.

1.1.

1.1.1.
Methodology

As described in the Guidance on the safety of feed additives for consumers (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c), consumption data of edible tissues and products as derived from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database (Comprehensive Database) will be used to assess exposure to residues from the use of feed additives in different EU countries, age classes81 and special population groups. For each EU country and age class, only the latest survey available in the Comprehensive Database will be used.

While the residue data reported for feed additives refer to organs and tissues (raw agricultural commodities. RAC), the Comprehensive Database includes consumption data for foods as consumed. In order to match those consumption data with the available residue data for feed additives, the consumption data reported in the Comprehensive Database have been converted into RAC equivalents. For assessing the exposure to chromium from their use in poultry, the following list of commodities is considered: meat, liver and other offals (kidney). In the case of the additive under assessment, the FEEDAP Panel considered that only the chronic exposure assessment would be appropriate.

For chronic exposure assessments, the total relevant residues will be combined for each individual with the average daily consumptions of the corresponding food commodities, and the resulting exposures per food will be summed in order to obtain total chronic exposure at individual level (standardised by using the individual body weight). The mean and the higher percentile (usually the 95th percentile) of the individual exposures will be subsequently calculated for each dietary survey (country) and each age class separately.

Detailed results on chronic exposure calculation
Table A.1.

Chronic dietary exposure per population class, country and survey (mg/kg body weight per day) to chromium residues based on residue data in chickens for fattening

Population class Survey's country Number of subjects HRP1 HRP description
Infants Bulgaria 523 0.0002610422 95th
Infants Germany 142 0.0000462322 95th
Infants Denmark 799 0.0000569355 95th
Infants Finland 427 0.0000851225 95th
Infants United Kingdom 1,251 0.0001122799 95th
Infants Italy 9 0.0000000000 50th
Toddlers Belgium 36 0.0001255564 90th
Toddlers Bulgaria 428 0.0002994947 95th
Toddlers Germany 348 0.0000816632 95th
Toddlers Denmark 917 0.0000631728 95th
Toddlers Spain 17 0.0001230769 75th
Toddlers Finland 500 0.0001359756 95th
Toddlers United Kingdom 1,314 0.0001294743 95th
Toddlers United Kingdom 185 0.0001323967 95th
Toddlers Italy 36 0.0001121455 90th
Toddlers Netherlands 322 0.0001377606 95th
Other children Austria 128 0.0001087622 95th
Other children Belgium 625 0.0001501970 95th
Other children Bulgaria 433 0.0002498790 95th
Other children Czech Republic 389 0.0002318841 95th
Other children Germany 293 0.0000847909 95th
Other children Germany 835 0.0000855948 95th
Other children Denmark 298 0.0000706172 95th
Other children Spain 399 0.0001599067 95th
Other children Spain 156 0.0002237978 95th
Other children Finland 750 0.0001159343 95th
Other children France 482 0.0000971715 95th
Other children United Kingdom 651 0.0001168900 95th
Other children Greece 838 0.0001143963 95th
Other children Italy 193 0.0001205390 95th
Other children Latvia 187 0.0001298914 95th
Other children Netherlands 957 0.0001004959 95th
Other children Netherlands 447 0.0001265456 95th
Other children Sweden 1,473 0.0000948131 95th
Adolescents Austria 237 0.0000751522 95th
Adolescents Belgium 576 0.0000687412 95th
Adolescents Cyprus 303 0.0000726739 95th
Adolescents Czech Republic 298 0.0001707490 95th
Adolescents Germany 393 0.0000657262 95th
Adolescents Germany 1,011 0.0000538202 95th
Adolescents Denmark 377 0.0000552265 95th
Adolescents Spain 651 0.0000928711 95th
Adolescents Spain 209 0.0001246327 95th
Adolescents Spain 86 0.0001018043 95th
Adolescents Finland 306 0.0000696663 95th
Adolescents France 973 0.0000645070 95th
Adolescents United Kingdom 666 0.0000856706 95th
Adolescents Italy 247 0.0000535676 95th
Adolescents Latvia 453 0.0000791579 95th
Adolescents Netherlands 1,142 0.0000948657 95th
Adolescents Sweden 1,018 0.0000713887 95th
Adults Austria 308 0.0000860621 95th
Adults Belgium 1,292 0.0000650923 95th
Adults Czech Republic 1,666 0.0000860126 95th
Adults Germany 10,419 0.0000530948 95th
Adults Denmark 1,739 0.0000360015 95th
Adults Spain 981 0.0000865352 95th
Adults Spain 410 0.0000865190 95th
Adults Finland 1,295 0.0000681722 95th
Adults France 2,276 0.0000541177 95th
Adults United Kingdom 1,265 0.0000632333 95th
Adults Hungary 1,074 0.0000823568 95th
Adults Ireland 1,274 0.0000847606 95th
Adults Italy 2,313 0.0000457636 95th
Adults Latvia 1,271 0.0000707351 95th
Adults Netherlands 2,055 0.0000777646 95th
Adults Romania 1,254 0.0000992240 95th
Adults Sweden 1,430 0.0000728628 95th
Elderly Austria 67 0.0000758215 95th
Elderly Belgium 511 0.0000528905 95th
Elderly Germany 2,006 0.0000416717 95th
Elderly Denmark 274 0.0000291164 95th
Elderly Finland 413 0.0000551021 95th
Elderly France 264 0.0000453278 95th
Elderly United Kingdom 166 0.0000526307 95th
Elderly Hungary 206 0.0000630194 95th
Elderly Ireland 149 0.0000692899 95th
Elderly Italy 289 0.0000501282 95th
Elderly Netherlands 173 0.0000593316 95th
Elderly Netherlands 289 0.0000504183 95th
Elderly Romania 83 0.0000899502 95th
Elderly Sweden 295 0.0000678490 95th
Very elderly Austria 25 0.0000180887 75th
Very elderly Belgium 704 0.0000615403 95th
Very elderly Germany 490 0.0000455771 95th
Very elderly Denmark 12 0.0000152033 75th
Very elderly France 84 0.0000504867 95th
Very elderly United Kingdom 139 0.0000390602 95th
Very elderly Hungary 80 0.0000602307 95th
Very elderly Ireland 77 0.0000706108 95th
Very elderly Italy 228 0.0000457884 95th
Very elderly Netherlands 450 0.0000484540 95th
Very elderly Romania 45 0.0000864240 90th
Very elderly Sweden 72 0.0000518101 95th
1

HRP: highest reliable percentile, i.e. the highest percentile that is considered statistically robust for combinations of dietary survey, age class and possibly raw primary commodity, considering that a minimum of 5, 12, 30 and 61 observations are, respectively, required to derive 50th, 75th and 90th and 95th percentile estimates. Estimates with less than five observations were not included in this table.

References

EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Rychen G, Aquilina G, Azimonti G, Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Bories G, Chesson A, Cocconcelli PS, Flachowsky G, Gropp J, Kolar B, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Mantovani A, Mayo B, Ramos F, Saarela M, Villa RE, Wallace RJ, Wester P, Anguita M, Dujardin B, Galobart J and Innocenti ML, 2017. Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the consumer. EFSA Journal 2017;15(10):5022, 17 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5022

Annex A – Executive Summary of the Evaluation Report of the European Union Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives on the Method(s) of Analysis for KemTRACE chromium (chromium propionate)

1.

In the current application, an authorisation is sought under Article 4(1) for chromium propionate under the category/functional group (4d) ‘zootechnical additives’/’other zootechnical additives’, according to the classification system of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Specifically, the authorisation is sought for the use of the feed additive for all growing poultry species.

According to the Applicant, the active substance of the feed additive is chromium propionate. The feed additive is to be marketed as a liquid preparation with a content of chromium propionate ranging from 29 to 32% (w/w), which corresponds to a chromium content ranging from 7 to 10% (w/w). The feed additive is intended to be incorporated into feedingstuffs through premixtures. The Applicant proposed minimum and maximum levels of the chromium content added via the use of chromium propionate, which the Applicant defined as organic chromium, ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/kg feedingstuffs.

For the quantification of the chromium propionate content in the feed additive, the Applicant submitted two single‐laboratory validated methods, namely a method based on liquid chromatography coupled to high‐resolution mass spectrometry (LC‐HRMS) and a method based on liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). The LC‐MS/MS method was further verified and the following performance characteristics were obtained for the quantification of the chromium propionate content in the feed additive in the frame of the validation and verification studies: a relative standard deviation for repeatability (RSDr) ranging from 2.0 to 7.2%, a relative standard deviation for intermediate precision (RSDip) ranging from 5.5 to 7.9% and a recovery rate (Rrec) ranging from 91 to 103%.

Based on the acceptable performance characteristics available, the EURL recommends for official control the single‐laboratory validated and further verified method based on LC‐MS/MS for the quantification of the chromium propionate content in the feed additive.

For the quantification of the chromium propionate content in premixtures and feedingstuffs, the Applicant submitted the above‐mentioned methods based on LC‐HRMS and LC‐MS/MS after an appropriate sample preparation. However, the Applicant did not provide the EURL with proper validation and/or verification data when applying the LC‐HRMS and/or LC‐MS/MS methods for the quantification of chromium propionate in premixtures and feedingstuffs.

Based on the available performance information, the EURL is not able to recommend for official control the above‐mentioned methods based on LC‐HRMS or LC‐MS/MS for the quantification of the chromium propionate content in premixtures and feedingstuffs.

For the quantification of the total chromium content in the feed additive, the Applicant submitted a single‐laboratory validated and further verified method based on inductively coupled plasma‐atomic emission spectrometry (ICP‐AES). The following performance characteristics were obtained for the quantification of the total chromium content in the feed additive in the frame of the validation and verification studies: an RSDr ranging from 0.3 to 0.9%, an RSDip ranging from 0.9 to 1.1% and an Rrec of 100%.

Based on the acceptable performance characteristics available, the EURL recommends for official control the single‐laboratory validated and further verified method based on ICP‐AES for the quantification of the total chromium content in the feed additive (chromium propionate).

For the quantification of the organic chromium content in mineral–vitamin premixtures and feedingstuffs, the Applicant proposed in‐house methods based on ICP‐AES and/or ICP‐MS. Non‐acceptable recoveries (lower than 60%) were reported for an average organic chromium content in the analysed samples of premixtures and feedingstuffs.

Based on the available data, the EURL is not able to recommend for official control the proposed methods based on ICP‐AES or ICP‐MS, neither any other method for the quantification of the organic chromium content in premixtures and feedingstuffs.

Further testing or validation of the methods to be performed through the consortium of National Reference Laboratories as specified by Article 10 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/2005, as last amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1761) is not considered necessary.

Suggested citation: EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed) , Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos ML, Christensen H, Dusemund B, Fašmon Durjava M, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Bories G, Cubadda F, Svensson K, Brozzi R, Galobart J, Gregoretti L, Innocenti ML, Vettori MV and López‐Gálvez G, 2021. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of chromium propionate (KemTRACE™ Chromium) for all growing poultry species (Kemin Europa NV). EFSA Journal 2021;19(4):6546, 30 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6546

Requestor: European Commission

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2019‐00804

Panel members: Giovanna Azimonti, Vasileios Bampidis 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 and Ruud Woutersen.

Legal notice: Relevant information or parts of this scientific output have been blackened in accordance with the confidentiality requests formulated by the applicant pending a decision thereon by the European Commission. The full output has been shared with the European Commission, EU Member States and the applicant. The blackening will be subject to review once the decision on the confidentiality requests is adopted by the European Commission.

Declarations of interest: The declarations of interest of all scientific experts active in EFSA's work are available at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/doisearch.

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to acknowledge the following for the support provided to this opinion: Angelica Amaduzzi, Montserrat Anguita, Paola Manini, Fabiola Pizzo and the FEEDAP Working Groups of Animal nutrition, Environment, Nutritional additives and Toxicology.

Adopted: 18 March 2021

Notes

1

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.

2

Kemin Europa NV. Toekomstlaan 42. 2200 Herentals, Belgium.

3

Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods. OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 26.

4

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1170/2009 of 30 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of Council and Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the lists of vitamin and minerals and their forms that can be added to foods, including food supplements. OJ L 314, 1.12.2009, p. 36.

5

Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009. OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 35.

6

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1023 of 23 July 2018 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 establishing the Union list of novel foods. OJ L 187, 24.7.2018, p. 1.

7

FEED dossier reference: FAD‐2019‐0076.

9

Commission Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 of 25 April 2008 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the preparation and the presentation of applications and the assessment and the authorisation of feed additives. OJ L 133, 22.5.2008, p. 1.

10

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_02.

11

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_03. ■■■■■

12

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_04. ■■■■■

13

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_03.

14

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_05.

15

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_5.

16

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_1.

17

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_06 and Annex II_07.

18

■■■■■ Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_10.

19

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_8.

20

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020. ■■■■■

21

■■■■■

22

Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed. OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 10.

23

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_9.

24

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_11 and Annex II_12.

25

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_August 2020; Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_September 2020 Annex_SIn1.pdf.

26

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020.

27

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_August 2020.

28

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_13.

29

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_14.

30

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_22.

31

■■■■■

32

■■■■■

33

Technical Dossier/Section II/Annex II_23.

34

■■■■■

35

Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials. OJ L 029, 30.1.2013, p. 1.

36

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_1.

37

■■■■■

38

■■■■■

39

■■■■■

40

■■■■■

41

■■■■■

42

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information/October 2020/Annex_SIn1.

43

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_3, Annex III_3.1 and Annex III_3.2.

44

■■■■■

45

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_6.

46

■■■■■

47

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_10.

48

■■■■■

49

■■■■■

50

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_7.

51

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_11.1 and Annex III_11.2. Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information_July 2020_Annex_SIn_11.

52

■■■■■

53

Technical Dossier/Supplementary information October 2020/AnnexSIn5.

54

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_12.

55

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex III_13.

56

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_14.

57

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_15.

58

Technical Dossier/Section III/ Annex_III_19.

59

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_18.

60

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_16.

61

■■■■■

62

■■■■■

63

■■■■■

64

■■■■■

65

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_17.

66

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_20.

67

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_21.

68

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_23.

69

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_25.

71

Technical Dossier/Spontaneous submission of Information_July 2020/Annex_SIn_15.

72

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_24.

73

Technical Dossier/Section III/Annex_III_26.

74

FOREGS database. Available online: http://weppi.gtk.fi/publ/foregsatlas/article.php?id=15.

75

Technical dossier/Section IV/Annex_IV_3.

76

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information October 2020/Annex6.

77

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information October 2020/Annex7.

78

Technical Dossier/Supplementary Information October 2020/Annex8.

79

■■■■■

80

Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene. OJ L 35, 8.2.2005, p. 1.

81

Infants: < 12 months old, toddlers: ≥ 12 months to < 36 months old, other children: ≥ 36 months to < 10 years old, adolescents: ≥ 10 years to < 18 years old, adults: ≥ 18 years to < 65 years old, elderly: ≥ 65 years to < 75 years old, and very elderly: ≥ 75 years old.

References

  1. Dai SY, Jones B, Lee K‐M, Lib W, Post L and Herrman TJ, 2016. Heavy metal contamination of animal feed in Texas. Journal of Regulatory Science, 01, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  2. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) on a request from the Commission on a mixture of chromium di‐ and tri‐nicotinate as a source of chromium. EFSA Journal 2008,6(12):887, 24 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2008.887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009a. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) on a request from the European Commission on the safety and efficacy of chromium methionine (Availa®Cr) as feed additive for all species. EFSA Journal 2009;7(4):1043, 69 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009b. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food on chromium(III)‐, iron(II)‐ and selenium‐ humic acid/fulvic acid chelate and supplemented humifulvate added for nutritional purposes to food supplements following a request from the European Commission. EFSA Journal 2009;7(6):1147, 36 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009c. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food on chromium picolinate, zinc picolinate and zinc picolinate dihydrate added for nutritional purposes in food supplements following a request from the European Commission. EFSA Journal 2009;7(6):1113, 41 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009d. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food on chromium(III) lactate trihydrate as a source of chromium added for nutritional purposes to food supplements, following a request from the European Commission. EFSA Journal 2009;7(6):1112, 7 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1112 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2010a. Scientific Opinion on the safety of trivalent chromium as a nutrient added for nutritional purposes to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses and foods intended for the general population (including food supplements). EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1882, 46 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1882 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2010b. Scientific Opinion on the safety of chromium picolinate as a source of chromium added for nutritional purposes to foodstuff for particular nutritional uses and to foods intended for the general population. EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1883, 49 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1883 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2012a. Scientific Opinion on Chromoprecise® cellular bound chromium yeast added for nutritional purposes as a source of chromium in food supplements and the bioavailability of chromium from this source. EFSA Journal 2012;10(11):2951, 27 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2951 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2012b. Scientific Opinion on chromium(III) lactate tri‐hydrate as a source of chromium added for nutritional purposes to foodstuff. EFSA Journal 2012;10(10):2881, 20 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2881 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2014. Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking water. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595, 261 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3595 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2011. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of propionic acid, sodium propionate, calcium propionate and ammonium propionate for all animal species. EFSA Journal 2011;9(12):2446, 22 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2012. Guidance on studies concerning the safety of use of the additive for users/workers. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2539, 5 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Rychen G, Aquilina G, Azimonti G, Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Bories G, Chesson A, Cocconcelli PS, Flachowsky G, Gropp J, Kolar B, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Mantovani A, Mayo B, Ramos F, Saarela M, Villa RE, Wallace RJ, Wester P, Anguita M, Galobart J and Innocenti ML, 2017a. Guidance on the identity, characterisation and conditions of use of feed additives. EFSA Journal 2017;15(10):5023, 12 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Rychen G, Aquilina G, Azimonti G, Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Bories G, Chesson A, Cocconcelli PS, Flachowsky G, Gropp J, Kolar B, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Mantovani A, Mayo B, Ramos F, Saarela M, Villa RE, Wallace RJ, Wester P, Anguita M, Galobart J, Innocenti ML and Martino L, 2017b. Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the target species. EFSA Journal 2017;15(10):5021, 19 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Rychen G, Aquilina G, Azimonti G, Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Bories G, Chesson A, Cocconcelli PS, Flachowsky G, Gropp J, Kolar B, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Mantovani A, Mayo B, Ramos F, Saarela M, Villa RE, Wallace RJ, Wester P, Anguita M, Dujardin B, Galobart J and Innocenti ML, 2017c. Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the consumer. EFSA Journal 2017;15(10):5022, 17 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Rychen G, Aquilina G, Azimonti G, Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Bories G, Chesson A, Cocconcelli PS, Flachowsky G, Gropp J, Kolar B, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Mantovani A, Mayo B, Ramos F, Saarela M, Villa RE, Wallace RJ, Wester P, Anguita M, Galobart J, Innocenti ML and Martino L, 2018. Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives. EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5274, 25 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Bampidis V, Bastos ML, Christensen H, Dusemund B, Kouba M, Kos Durjava M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Brock T, Knecht J, Kolar B, Beelen P, Padovani L, Tarrés‐Call J, Vettori MV and Azimonti G, 2019. Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the environment. EFSA Journal 2019;17(4):5648, 78 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), Bampidis V, Azimonti G, Bastos ML, Christensen H, Dusemund B, Kos Durjava M, Kouba M, López‐Alonso M, López Puente S, Marcon F, Mayo B, Pechová A, Petkova M, Ramos F, Sanz Y, Villa RE, Woutersen R, Gropp J, Mantovani A and López‐Gálvez G, 2020. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Availa®Cr (chromium chelate of DL‐methionine) as a feed additive for dairy cows. EFSA Journal 2020;18(2):6026, 26 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2010. Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to chromium and contribution to normal macronutrient metabolism (ID 260, 401, 4665, 4666, 4667), maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations (ID 262, 4667), contribution to the maintenance or achievement of a normal body weight (ID 339, 4665, 4666), and reduction of tiredness and fatigue (ID 261) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal 2010;8(10):1732, 23 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1732 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2014a. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for chromium. EFSA Journal 2014;12(10):3845, 25 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2014b. Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to a combination of L‐threonine, L‐valine, L‐leucine, L‐isoleucine, L‐lysine plus chromium picolinate and reduction of post‐prandial glycaemic responses pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal 2014;12(7):3752, 8 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3752 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goff JP, 2018. Mineral absorption mechanisms, mineral interactions that affect acid‐base and antioxidant status, and diet considerations to improve mineral status. Journal of Dairy Science, 101, 2763–2813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Króliczewska B, Zawadzki W, Dobrzanski Z and Kaczmarek‐Oliwa X, 2004. Changes in selected serum parameters of broiler chicken fed supplemental chromium. Journal of Animal Physiology, 88, 393–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Nicholson FA, Chambersa BJ, Williamsb JR and Unwinc RJ, 1999. Heavy metal contents of livestock feeds and animal manures in England and Wales. Bioresource Technology, 70, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  26. Spears JW, Lloyd KE, Pickworth CA, Huang YL, Krafka K, Hyda J and Grimes JL, 2019. Chromium propionate in broilers: human food and broiler safety. Poultry Science, 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Paemel M, Dierick N, Janssens G, Fievez V and De Smet S, 2010. Selected trace and ultratrace elements: Biological role, content in feed and requirements in animal nutrition – Elements for risk assessment. Technical Report submitted to EFSA. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/68e.htm
  28. WHO (World Health Organization), 1996. Chromium in Drinking‐water. Document originally published in Guidelines for drinking‐water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1996. Available online: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/water-quality/guidelines/chemicals/chromium.pdf
  29. Yildiz AÖ, Parlat SS and Yazgan O, 2004. The effects of organic chromium supplementation on production traits and some serum parameters of laying quails. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire, 155, 642−646. [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES