Dataset Information

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties.

ABSTRACT: The European Commission requested EFSA to assess, in collaboration with EMA, the specific concentrations of antimicrobials resulting from cross-contamination in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in microbial agents relevant for human and animal health, as well as the levels of the antimicrobials which could have a growth promotion/increase yield effect. The assessment was performed for 24 antimicrobial active substances, as specified in the mandate. This scientific opinion describes the methodology used, and the main associated data gaps and uncertainties. To estimate the antimicrobial levels in the non-target feed that would not result in emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance, a model was developed. This 'Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration' (FARSC) model is based on the minimal selective concentration (MSC), or the predicted MSC (PMSC) if MSC for the most susceptible bacterial species is unavailable, the fraction of antimicrobial dose available for exposure to microorganisms in the large intestine or rumen (considering pharmacokinetic parameters), the daily faecal output or rumen volume and the daily feed intake. Currently, lack of data prevents the establishment of PMSC and/or FARSC for several antimicrobials and animal species. To address growth promotion, data from an extensive literature search were used. Specific assessments of the different substances grouped by antimicrobial classes are addressed in separate scientific opinions. General conclusions and recommendations were made.

SUBMITTER: EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8547316 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: <i>Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties</i>.

Koutsoumanis Konstantinos K Allende Ana A Alvarez-Ordóñez Avelino A Bolton Declan D Bover-Cid Sara S Chemaly Marianne M Davies Robert R De Cesare Alessandra A Herman Lieve L Hilbert Friederike F Lindqvist Roland R Nauta Maarten M Ru Giuseppe G Simmons Marion M Skandamis Panagiotis P Suffredini Elisabetta E Andersson Dan I DI Bampidis Vasileios V Bengtsson-Palme Johan J Bouchard Damien D Ferran Aude A Kouba Maryline M López Puente Secundino S López-Alonso Marta M Nielsen Søren Saxmose SS Pechová Alena A Petkova Mariana M Girault Sebastien S Broglia Alessandro A Guerra Beatriz B Innocenti Matteo Lorenzo ML Liébana Ernesto E López-Gálvez Gloria G Manini Paola P Stella Pietro P Peixe Luisa L

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority 20211026 10

The European Commission requested EFSA to assess, in collaboration with EMA, the specific concentrations of antimicrobials resulting from cross-contamination in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in microbial agents relevant for human and animal health, as well as the levels of the antimicrobials which could have a growth promotion/increase yield effect. The assessment was performed for 24 anti ...[more]

PMID: 34729081

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ecological Niche Models (ENMs) are increasingly used by ecologists to project species potential future distribution. However, the application of such models may be challenging, and some caveats have already been identified. While studies have generally shown that projections may be sensitive to the ENM applied or the emission scenario, to name just a few, the sensitivity of ENM-based scenarios to General Circulation Models (GCMs) has been often underappreciated. Here, using a multi-GCM and multi-emission scenario approach, we evaluated the variability in projected distributions under future climate conditions. We modeled the ecological realized niche (sensu Hutchinson) and predicted the baseline distribution of species with contrasting spatial patterns and representative of two major functional groups of European trees: the dwarf birch and the sweet chestnut. Their future distributions were then projected onto future climatic conditions derived from seven GCMs and four emissions scenarios using the new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 report. Uncertainties arising from GCMs and those resulting from emissions scenarios were quantified and compared. Our study reveals that scenarios of future species distribution exhibit broad differences, depending not only on emissions scenarios but also on GCMs. We found that the between-GCM variability was greater than the between-RCP variability for the next decades and both types of variability reached a similar level at the end of this century. Our result highlights that a combined multi-GCM and multi-RCP approach is needed to better consider potential trajectories and uncertainties in future species distributions. In all cases, between-GCM variability increases with the level of warming, and if nothing is done to alleviate global warming, future species spatial distribution may become more and more difficult to anticipate. When future species spatial distributions are examined, we propose to use a large number of GCMs and RCPs to better anticipate potential trajectories and quantify uncertainties.

Project description:Endocrine-disrupting substances (EDS) may have certain biological effects including delayed effects, multigenerational effects, and may display nonmonotonic dose-response (NMDR) relationships that require careful consideration when determining environmental hazards. Endocrine disrupting substances can have specific and profound effects when exposure occurs during sensitive windows of the life cycle (development, reproduction). This creates the potential for delayed effects that manifest when exposure has ceased, possibly in a different life stage. This potential underscores the need for testing in appropriate (sensitive) life stages and full life cycle designs. Such tests are available in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tool box and should be used to derive endpoints that can be considered protective of all life stages. Similarly, the potential for effects to be manifest in subsequent generations (multigenerational effects) has also been raised as a potential issue in the derivation of appropriate endpoints for EDS. However, multigenerational studies showing increasing sensitivity of successive generations are uncommon. Indeed this is reflected in the design of new higher tier tests to assess endocrine active substances (EAS) that move to extended one-generation designs and away from multi-generational studies. The occurrence of NMDRs is also considered a limiting factor for reliable risk assessment of EDS. Evidence to date indicates NMDRs are more prevalent in in vitro and mechanistic data, not often translating to adverse apical endpoints that would be used in risk assessment. A series of steps to evaluate NMDRs in the context of endocrine hazard and risk assessment procedures is presented. If careful consideration of delayed, multigenerational effects and NMDRs is made, it is feasible to assess environmental endocrine hazards and derive robust apical endpoints for risk assessment procedures ensuring a high level of environmental protection. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:293-301. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Dataset Information

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties.

Publications

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: <i>Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties</i>.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets