Evaluation of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review for S‐metolachlor
In: EFSA journal, Band 21, Heft 10
ISSN: 1831-4732
84 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: EFSA journal, Band 21, Heft 10
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 7
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/5/8
Abstract Background In the wake of the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy the British government established a flock of sheep from which scrapie-free animals are supplied to laboratories for research. Three breeds of sheep carrying a variety of different genotypes associated with scrapie susceptibility/resistance were imported in 1998 and 2001 from New Zealand, a country regarded as free from scrapie. They are kept in a purpose-built Sheep Unit under strict disease security and are monitored clinically and post mortem for evidence of scrapie. It is emphasised that atypical scrapie, as distinct from classical scrapie, has been recognised only relatively recently and differs from classical scrapie in its clinical, neuropathological and biochemical features. Most cases are detected in apparently healthy sheep by post mortem examination. Results The occurrence of atypical scrapie in three sheep in (or derived from) the Sheep Unit is reported. Significant features of the affected sheep included their relatively high ages (6 y 1 mo, 7 y 9 mo, 9 y 7 mo respectively), their breed (all Cheviots) and their similar PRNP genotypes (AFRQ/AFRQ, AFRQ/ALRQ, and AFRQ/AFRQ, respectively). Two of the three sheep showed no clinical signs prior to death but all were confirmed as having atypical scrapie by immunohistochemistry and Western immunoblotting. Results of epidemiological investigations are presented and possible aetiologies of the cases are discussed. Conclusion By process of exclusion, a likely explanation for the three cases of atypical scrapie is that they arose spontaneously and were not infected from an exterior source. If correct, this raises challenging issues for countries which are currently regarded as free from scrapie. It would mean that atypical scrapie is liable to occur in flocks worldwide, especially in older sheep of susceptible genotypes. To state confidently that both the classical and atypical forms of scrapie are absent from a population it is necessary for active surveillance to have taken place.
BASE
In: EFSA journal, Band 22, Heft 4
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 21, Heft 1
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 20, Heft 11
ISSN: 1831-4732
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.
BASE
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 1
ISSN: 1831-4732
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.
BASE
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 12
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 4
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 4
ISSN: 1831-4732
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
BASE
In: EFSA journal, Band 18, Heft 12
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 18, Heft 10
ISSN: 1831-4732