A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrP(S) (c)), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrP(S) (c), of at least 6 log(10) should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log(10) reduction in detectable PrP(S) (c), by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrP(S) (c) from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log(10) reduction in PrP(S) (c). Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP.
EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture.
A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrPSc), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrPSc, of at least 6 log10 should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log10 reduction in detectable PrPSc, by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrPSc from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log10 reduction in PrPSc. Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
The European Commission asked EFSA for a Scientific Opinion: to revise the state of knowledge about the differences between the chronic wasting disease (CWD) strains found in North America (NA) and Europe and within Europe; to review new scientific evidence on the zoonotic potential of CWD and to provide recommendations to address the potential risks and to identify risk factors for the spread of CWD in the European Union. Full characterisation of European isolates is being pursued, whereas most NA CWD isolates have not been characterised in this way. The differing surveillance programmes in these continents result in biases in the types of cases that can be detected. Preliminary data support the contention that the CWD strains identified in Europe and NA are different and suggest the presence of strain diversity in European cervids. Current data do not allow any conclusion on the implications of strain diversity on transmissibility, pathogenesis or prevalence. Available data do not allow any conclusion on the zoonotic potential of NA or European CWD isolates. The risk of CWD to humans through consumption of meat cannot be directly assessed. At individual level, consumers of meat, meat products and offal derived from CWD‐infected cervids will be exposed to the CWD agent(s). Measures to reduce human dietary exposure could be applied, but exclusion from the food chain of whole carcasses of infected animals would be required to eliminate exposure. Based on NA experiences, all the risk factors identified for the spread of CWD may be associated with animals accumulating infectivity in both the peripheral tissues and the central nervous system. A subset of risk factors is relevant for infected animals without involvement of peripheral tissues. All the risk factors should be taken into account due to the potential co‐localisation of animals presenting with different disease phenotypes.
