Transparency data

Minutes of 105th ACAF meeting

Updated 18 September 2026

Attendance

ACAF

Nick Wheelhouse (Chair)
Adam Smith
Barry Bradford
Carla Viegas
Christel Wake
Derek Renshaw
Donald Morrison
Emily Burton
Hannah Kane
Helen Warren
Katrina Campbell
Martin Briggs
Mike Salter
Nick Jonsson

FSA

Alba Ureña Rusillo
Barry Maycock
Beth Hall
David Evans
Emily Hudson
Francisco Matilla
James Metcalfe
Johann Trotter
Kalia Lee
Nathan Allen
Shila Sultana
Josephine Walker

1. Apologies 

Apologies were received from Susan MacDonald.

2. Welcome

The Chair welcomed members of the Committee, Secretariat and observers from the Devolved Administrations.

3. Risk Assessment update

The Regulated Products Team Leader Francisco Matilla updated members on the withdrawal of the 3-NOP application for use in all growing ruminants from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in April and notified members that no further information is available. Members were notified of a meeting that was held with game bird industry representatives and field vet representatives through the Antimicrobial Resistance in Agrifood Systems Transdisciplinary (AMAST) network. Procedures and the use of coccidiostats and antimicrobials in game birds were discussed. A brief update on the status of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement was also provided.

4. Policy update

Animal Feed Policy Adviser, Beth Hall, highlighted that there is guidance on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA_ website in relation to preparing businesses for SPS. Members were notified of feed trials currently going through clearance, as well as an emphasis being placed on how animal welfare is accounted for in such trials. A bacteriophage trial previously mentioned is now being discussed with Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) and should take place soon. The Committee were also informed of an upcoming update on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) website regarding their beef welfare standards, as well as an amendment to regulation 429/2008 in the EU.

5. Minutes from 104th Meeting

The Committee reviewed the minutes from the 104th ACAF meeting and provided feedback to be reviewed by the Secretariat.

6. EFSA consultation introduction

Members discussed the EFSA consultation process and were presented with two prior examples to consider how they could input into the process.

Members reviewed a prior EFSA consultation for Bacillus velezensis (DSM 15544) as a zootechnical feed additive for pets and other non-food producing animals. A summary of the consultation and links to the publicly available documentation was presented. Members noted that the summaries provided were useful in supporting their review. Members concluded that they would be able to contribute to this type of consultation, however as only redacted documentation is available, this may limit their input in certain areas. In particular, limited detail may reduce the ability to adequately assess user/worker safety.

Members also reviewed a prior EFSA consultation on the draft guidance on default values and uncertainty factors to be used by the EFSA Scientific Committee, Panels and Units in the absence of measured data. This consultation had previously been assessed by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), and Members considered both the draft guidance documentation and the paper presented to the COT to determine its suitability as an approach for presentation and providing comments. Members agreed that the cover paper provided to the COT was an effective method for highlighting key information and setting out the purpose of the consultation.

Members concluded that they are able to contribute to both types of consultation presented and agreed that the secretariat should lead on identifying relevant applications and determining which require Committee input. Members further noted that the approach to contribution would need to be developed to ensure that any comments reflect the collective views of ACAF, rather than those of individual Members.

7. PC1947 EFSA consultation: PARNUTs Guidance

Initially a brief overview was given on the regulations related to the intended uses of feed intended for particular nutritional purposes (PARNUTs), highlighting the diversity of these additives. Members agreed that this document would be useful for applicants, even though the guidance is less specific due to the wide range of possible applications.

Members agreed that the concept of specific nutritional need is sufficiently well-defined and measurable in practice.

The ACAF finds the inclusion of boluses for delivery of minerals or vitamins in PARNUTs to be an anomaly, as they are used in the absence of either internal or external stresses. Boluses are merely used as a means of delivery of a standard amount of product.

Members queried the ambiguity of the term “stressful situation” in the guidance and agreed it could be better specified as any externally imposed environmental or dietary conditions that disturb an animal’s homeostasis or otherwise have the potential to affect its health and well-being. There is also the potential for confusion with additives that may help an animal cope with stresses, such as physiological condition stabilisers which are aimed at healthy animals. Therefore, it should be made clear that the PARNUT should address the need for a specific condition that cannot be corrected by normal diets. Members agreed that the use of the word “impairment” would help differentiate between the two.

In reference to lines 198-201, queries were raised around the required analysis of at least one batch of dietetic feed. Such analysis would not be appropriate for all PARNUTs, for example the use of negative DCAD (Dietary Cation-Anion Difference) diets in cattle for milk fever production. DCAD diets are not technically a dietetic feed, but a recommended threshold in the diet. Members agreed that EFSA may want to consider stipulating that this analysis would not be appropriate in all scenarios, including a few examples.

The Committee agreed with lines 231-235, as given the variety within PARNUTs, it is impossible to provide definitive statements on the need for safety evaluations. Specific considerations with respect to potential toxicity should be tailored to the product because risk is quantified by the combination of hazard and exposure, both of which are largely product-specific. It is also important to stress that user safety testing should be performed on the final formulation to be used.

Members agreed that applicants should demonstrate that the PARNUT addresses a distinct nutritional need either through literature and/or experimental studies.

Addendum: Members noted offline that the guidance does not have a section relating to user safety. Members agreed that there should be a specific section for user safety to maintain consistency across guidelines. The Committee recommended that the guidance should stress that user safety testing should be performed on the final formulation to be used, where relevant. This would not be necessary for certain PARNUTs, such as the use of DCAD as described above. Including user safety where relevant is important as this is the material to which workers will be exposed during manufacture, transport, storage, mixing and feeding. Inclusion of this information will also ensure consistency across guidance for feed additives.

8. Bovaer report update

Since 2025 it has been a requirement that Danish dairy farmers with more than 50 yearling cows that are not covered by the organic regulations must reduce methane emissions from their herds. In a report by Aarhus University, data from 73 dairy cattle herds that used Bovaer in 2025 were examined. Members were asked to provide feedback on the report, including the conclusion that there was no evidence of an overall increase in mortality or a general decrease in milk yield in a sample of dairy herds after the introduction of Bovaer.

Members noted that the report was not well structured and that the presentation of the findings could have been improved. However, the Committee agreed that the report contained sufficient information to conclude that no adverse effects on the herds were evident at the time the study was conducted. The underlying analysis was considered to be reasonably robust.

The Committee noted that reductions in dry matter intake have been consistently reported across systematic reviews of 3-NOP and, therefore, did not consider this finding to be of concern.

Members expressed reservations regarding the retrospective nature of the data collection and the potential for bias arising from the datasets included in the analysis. However, they considered the analysis itself to have been conducted appropriately.

The Committee also noted the considerable variability within the dataset and the fact that health effects were recorded only when veterinary medicinal treatment was administered. Members acknowledged the authors’ recognition that this approach may have resulted in an underestimation of health-related effects.

Overall, the Committee agreed that the report’s conclusions were reasonable and appropriately reflected the limitations and caveats identified by the authors.

9. ACAF annual progress report

Members were given the opportunity to raise any final comments in relation to the ACAF annual progress report. Some minor edits were raised regarding personal details in the appendix detailing information about the Committee members. A suggestion was also raised that more information was included about the discussion members had about the safety of Interban in relation to antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

10. Coccidiostat report and conference

Prior to the meeting feedback on the coccidiostat paper had been provided by Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA) which had been considered offline by Committee members. The purpose of this item was an opportunity for members to discuss any feedback they deemed necessary.

Members discussed the definitions of co-selection and co-resistance and their relevance to the paper. Co-resistance refers to different antimicrobial resistance genes being physically present together on the same genetic element, such as a plasmid. Co-selection is the process by which the use of one selective agent promotes the persistence or spread of antimicrobial resistance. Members highlighted that laboratory conjugation experiments have shown that exposure of narasin can enable co-selection, therefore, there is a potential risk.

Members discussed the relevant surveillance programmes, highlighting that coccidiostat and AMR surveillance could be enhanced through better coordination.

Following his attendance at the International Coccidiosis Conference, Regulated Products Team Leader Francisco Matilla provided an overview of the conference and relevant topics discussed. The overarching conclusion was that a toolbox of different resources is necessary to control coccidiosis. Options used will depend on the characteristics and needs of the birds, as well as other factors such as the house and farming.

11. Next ACAF meeting:

10th September on Microsoft Teams.