What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective

Transcription

1 What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective 3 - Safety of Feed Additives for Humans, Animals and Environment Selected Examples Barcelona, 5 May 2015 Gerhard Flachowsky- EFSA FEEDAP Panel

2 Objective What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective To ensure that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers, users and the environment. 2

3 Outline Scientific Issues Example for consumer protection Iodine Application of feed additives in water for drinking - Environmental aspects Lysine Copper Conclusions 3

4 CONSUMER PROTECTION Iodine (EFSA, 2013) Requirements for humans and animals Upper levels for humans Iodine content of milk (influencing factors) Iodine intake of humans Conclusions for I as feed additive 4

5 Iodine Requirements of Humans* What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective 0 3 years: µg/day Juvenile: µg/day Adults: µg/day Pregnancy/Lactation: µg/day *(µg/day or >100 µg I/L urine) by various scientific societies 5

6 Iodine Upper Levels in Human Nutrition* What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective 1 3 years: 200 µg/day (USA; Europe) Adults: 500/600 (Europe) up to 1,100 (USA) Range between requirements and Upper Level 1 : 2-3 *(UL; µg/day or >300 µg/l urine) 6

7 Iodine Requirements of Animals (NRC, GfE; mg/kg DM) Dairy cattle: 0,5 Beef cattle: 0,3 0,4 Fattening pigs: 0,15 0,20 Laying hen: 0,32 0,50 Chicken for fattening: 0,35 0,50 7

8 Cow Milk as one of the most important I-source of Humans Between 20 and about 50% of human I-intake of European population comes from milk The highest I-levels from milk are observed in the Czech Rep. and UK Milk cannot be labeled concerning I-content 8

9 Iodine Content (µg/l) of bulk Milk Samples in EU Countries Countries Iodine content of milk (µg/l) Austria 74 Poland (2007) (2014) Switzerland 90 Germany 130 (93 153) Belgium 158 France 207 Slovakia 240 England (2008) (2015) (org.) 474 (conv.) Czech Rep

10 Influencing Factors on I-Content of Milk I content of feed (I-intake) Antagonists in feed/interactions Farm management (e.g. org./convent.) Teat dipping (with I-containing substances) Milk processing (e.g. pasteurization) Further factors (breed, lactation stage etc.) 10

11 Influencing Factors on I-Content of Milk Influence of Iodine in feed, protein sources and Iodine species on Iodine concentration of milk (Franke et al., 2009) 11

12 Iodine intake from Milk depending on I-Content of Milk and Milk Intake I in total feed (mg/kg DM; (-) or (+) glucosinolates) I-concentration (µg/l milk) Milk Intake (L/day) I-intake (µg/day)

13 Consumer Protection Proposal of the FEEDAP Panel (EFSA, 2013) Reduction of UL for I in dairy ruminants diets from 5 to 2 mg/kg mixed feed Reduction of UL for I in feed of laying hens from 5 to 3 mg/kg mixed feed 13

14 Conclusions for Animal Nutrition What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective To meet the I-requirements by dairy cows under consideration of I-antagonists (0,5 1 mg/kg DM) To avoid I-excess in feeding and in milk (consumer protection) of heavy milk drinkers (or labeling of I- content of milk?) To find/use other ways to meet I-requirements of human (e.g. salt and labeling) 14

15 Iodine Content in feed Feed for Cows under Farm Conditions (51 feed samples from Germany; Gruenewald et al. 2006) Average (mg/kg DM) 1.27 Min. - Value (mg/kg DM) 0.49 Max. - Value (mg/kg DM)

16 Environmental protection What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective Feed additives in water for drinking Water intake of food producing animals Additives via water Consequences for metabolism and excretion 1 - N-excretion of pigs after lysine-supplementation of water and possible N 2 O emissions (EFSA, 2014) 2 - Cu-compounds via water for drinking (EFSA, 2015) 16

17 Water Intake of Food producing Animals Animal species/category Dry matter intake (% body mass) Water : Feed relation (L water/kg DM-intake) Dairy cow (600 kg bw) Fattening pigs Laying hen

18 1- N-excretion of pigs after lysine-supplementation Lysine requirements (GfE 2008) of prececal digestible Crude Protein (pcd CP) and Lysine for growing Pigs (800g DWG) Body weight (kg) g pcd CP per day g pcd Lysine per day

19 Potential Influence of Lysine Supplementation via water (Pigs) Lysine requirements of pigs (60 kg bw; 800 g DWG; 2 kg DMI): 15 g pcd Lys/day Water intake (3 L/kg DM): 6 L/day Additional Lys/or N-intake (1 g Ly/L): 6/1 g/day Imbalance, Influence on N-metabolism (liver etc.) Estimated additional N-excretion: at least 1 g/day 19

20 Consequences of GHG-Emission per kg Pork Potential for higher NH 3 - and N 2 O-emissions Example: 5% of N-excretion converted into N 2 O: +78 mg N 2 O/animal and day Influence on Carbon Footprint (CF) (CF; N 2 O x 296) of pork:increase of CF by 23 gco 2 - equiv. 20

21 2- Cu in Water for Drinking Cu-maximum authorised content (mg/kg mixed feed): Cattle:15; Pigs/Poultry: 25 Cu-content of unsupplemented feed (background content): 6-10 mg/kg DM Average Water intake (L/kg DM): between 2 (Poultry) and 5 L (Dairy cows) What have we learnt from the re-evaluation? EFSA s perspective Possible Cu-supplementation (mg/l): between 1.2 (Dairy cows) and 7.5 (Chicken for fattening), if no Cu-supplementation of feed 21

22 Reasons for limited Trace Element Amounts in Feed Avoid Trace Element accumulation in soil (potential risk for soil organisms) Risk for washing out of trace elements in ground water (higher concentration and potential risk for organisms in water) Presently not clear: Contribution of Cu-resistant microorganisms to antibiotic resistance? 22

23 Conclusions/Summary Safety for consumer and environment are long term objectives of FEEDAP-activities Food of animal origin are important energy and nutrient sources of humans, but normally they cannot be labeled Therefore, the potential risk (e.g. for I) for high consumers (e.g. of milk) should be considered and minimized Supplementation of feed additives via water may influence balanced diets, animal metabolism and excretion 23

24 Some references relating to the presentation EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed on the request from the Commission on the use of iodine in feedingstuffs. EFSA Journal 168: 1-42 EFSA Statement on the use of feed additives authorized/applied for the use in feed when supplied via water. EFSA J. 8 (12) 1956 (9 p.) EFSA. 2013a. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of iodine compounds (E2) as feed additives for all animal species: calcium iodate anhydrous EFSA Journal 11(2): 3100 EFSA 2013b. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of iodine compounds (E2) as feed additives for all animal species: calcium iodate anhydrous and potassium iodide EFSA Journal 11(2): 3101 EFSA Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of concentrated L-lysine EFSA Journal 12(11):3895, (19 p.) EFSA Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Cu-compounds, EFSA Journal 13(4) 4057 (51 p.) Flachowsky G, Franke K, Meyer U, Leiterer M, Schoene F Influencing factors on iodine content of cow milk. European Journal of Nutrition 53,