Transparency data

Annual Report 2025/2026

Published 31 July 2026

1. Foreword 

This report outlines the work of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) over the 2025/26 reporting period, reflecting another year of sustained effort and careful evaluation by both Committee members and the Secretariat. As set out in its Terms of Reference, ACAF’s primary function is to undertake risk assessments of applications relating to feed additives, feed for particular nutritional purposes, and feed detoxification processes. This core responsibility has continued to shape the Committee’s workload throughout the year. During the period covered by this report, the Committee considered 17 applications for the authorisation of animal feed additives. In addition, 6 Safety Assessments were published, contributing to the Committee’s ongoing commitment to transparency and evidence-based decision-making. As in previous years, no applications relating to feed detoxification processes were brought forward.

Over the past year, the Committee has remained focused on ensuring that its core work continues to progress efficiently while maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigour. The Secretariat has continued to apply a thorough completeness check process, ensuring that applications are supported by sufficient evidence before being presented to the Committee. Where necessary, applicants are asked to provide additional information at an early stage, helping to minimise delays and support a more streamlined assessment process. Work has also continued to improve guidance for applicants, addressing common areas of misunderstanding and supporting greater consistency in submissions. These ongoing improvements have enhanced the Committee’s ability to reach timely and well-founded conclusions. By enabling more focused scrutiny of applications and improving the overall quality of submissions, the Committee is well positioned to respond to both current demands and future regulatory challenges.

The Committee continues to benefit from a diverse and highly skilled membership, bringing together expertise across toxicology, animal science, nutrition, microbiology, chemistry, veterinary practice, and the animal feed industry. This breadth of knowledge is essential in addressing the complex and often specialised nature of the applications under consideration. As always, potential conflicts of interest are managed with the utmost care to uphold the transparency and integrity of the Committee’s work.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all Committee members, the Secretariat, and our policy colleagues for their continued commitment, professionalism, and collaboration throughout the year. Looking ahead, ACAF remains dedicated to strengthening its processes and supporting the safe and effective development of animal feed products, while maintaining public confidence in regulatory oversight.

Professor Nick Wheelhouse

2. Introduction

2.1 Overview

The Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) provide independent scientific advice to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and ministers on the risks in relation to animal feed, with particular regard to human health. The advice and support given by the Committee is crucial in helping the FSA fulfil their mission of “food we can trust”. This means that feed and food are safe, that food is what is says it is, and that food is healthy and sustainable.

The ACAF is a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) that provides expert advice to the FSA/Food Standards Scotland (FSS) as part of the risk assessment process. The main role of the ACAF is to assess regulated product applications of feed additives, feed for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTs) and feed detoxification processes. These products require authorisation before they can legally be sold in the UK.

In January 2026, the ACAF was formally reclassified from an Advisory Non-Departmental Public Body to a Departmental Expert Committee. The reclassification does not alter the Committee’s remit, independence, or the essential role it plays in providing high-quality evidenced-based advice. The Committee’s Terms of Reference, membership, and secretariat remain the same.

Since the UK left the EU, the FSA have taken on responsibility for assessing food and feed safety in the UK. This includes all applications for regulated products, which are handled through the Regulated Products Service (RPS).

In April 2025, two legislative reforms to the market authorisation process came into force: the removal of renewal applications for feed additives and the removal of the requirement for Statutory Instruments (Reform SI). Therefore, the Committee did not assess any renewal applications during the 2025/26 period. With the removal of SIs, authorisations now take effect once ministers have made a decision and the details are published in an official register of feed additives, rather than being implemented through legislation.

The approach through ministers is more efficient, aligns with other UK regulators, and shortens the administrative period before new, safe products can reach the market. The removal of assessing renewal authorisations allows greater focus on applications which potentially pose the most risk. It also improves the accessibility of information.

With the implementation of the Reform project, the Committee focused on more complex applications or those requiring specific consideration that could not be assessed through other routes. As part of the Reform project, the ACAF and Secretariat adapted their working practices to support more efficient assessment of feed additive dossiers in Great Britain (GB), including providing more detailed summaries and cover papers from the Secretariat.

This report outlines the work that has been done by the Committee over the 2025/26 Financial Year (FY). 

2.2 Role and responsibilities of the Committee

The role of the ACAF is to advise the FSA and ministers on the risks in relation to animal feed, with particular regard to human health. Their main responsibility is to carry out the risk assessment for applications of feed additives, feed for particular nutritional uses and feed detoxification processes. 

The Committee comprises an independent chair and fifteen independent members. The Committee is made up of a range of experts, covering relevant scientific disciplines and knowledge of the feed sector who provide insight, advice and the technical knowledge needed to evaluate the safety of animal feedstuffs applications.

More information about the roles and responsibilities of the Committee can be found in the ACAF Terms of Reference. 

2.3 ACAF Code of Practice

All members of the Committee adhere to the ACAF Code of Practice. Members act in the public interest and observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity. All members uphold the public service values expected of them, following the ethical standards outlined in The Seven Principles of Public Life.  

All interests, both personal and non-personal, must be declared. Members do not misuse the information gained in their activities for personal or political gain, or to promote their personal interests. 

Members are aware of their roles and responsibilities and are held to account for the decisions that they make. They have a collective responsibility to ensure that the Committee operates effectively.

More information can be found in the ACAF code of practice.

2.4 Good Practice Guidelines for Scientific Advisory Committees

All Scientific Advisory Committees that advise the FSA and for which the FSA is the sole lead or sponsor department must follow the Good Practice Guidelines for Science Advisory Committees.  

The guidelines contain twenty-nine principles of good practice, although not all principles are relevant to every committee. The Committee have reviewed their application of these principles over the period of this report (Appendix II) and will continue to do so annually, in line with the Guidelines.

Compliance with the Guidelines will also be covered in the annual self-assessments by members and annual feedback meetings between each SAC Chair and the FSA Chief Scientist. 

2.5 Ways of Working

The Committee’s primary focus is on risk assessment of regulated animal feed product applications. The ACAF are fully supported in their work by a Secretariat, supplied by the FSA/FSS. For all ACAF-led assessments, the Secretariat perform an in-depth completeness check of the technical dossier against the applicable regulations and any associated guidance documents. The Secretariat can flag any areas of concern for the Committee, but the ACAF has full access to the entire technical dossier to carry out their risk assessment.

The Committee request further information from the applicant if required to evaluate the application.

Once the ACAF have assessed the application, they prepare their conclusions with regards to identity and characterisation of the additive, safety for consumers, the target animal(s) and the environment, safety for users, workers and efficacy (where applicable). These are summarised in the form of a Committee’s Advice document. The FSA/FSS consider the recommendations in the Committee’s Advice document to formulate a Safety Assessment. The Safety Assessment aids Risk Managers in the risk management phase of the risk analysis process.

More information can be found in the ACAF ways of working. 

2.6 Areas of work

The majority of applications considered by the ACAF are for animal feed additives. Assimilated Regulation (EC) 1831/2003 and assimilated Commission Regulation (EC) No 429/2008 outline the authorisation procedure for these substances and describe the requirements that must be met. The Committee consider applications against the legislation and relevant EFSA Guidance.

In the period of this report, the Committee considered seventeen applications for the authorisation of animal feed additives under Assimilated Regulation (EC) 1831/2003. Members reviewed and finalised the draft Safety Assessments for 6 applications, 4 of which were assessed in the 2024/25 FY. The FSA/FSS published 6 Safety Assessments based on the recommendations of the ACAF during this time. For more information, refer to Section 3: The Committee’s work in 2025/26.

The Committee also consider applications to update the list of intended uses of feed intended for particular nutritional purposes (PARNUTs), as laid out in assimilated Regulation (EU) 2020/354. 

Feed intended for PARNUTs may only be marketed in Great Britain (GB) if its intended use is included in the list of intended uses, or it meets the essential nutritional characteristics for the respective particular nutritional purpose included in that list. If not, an application must be submitted to amend the legislation. Applicants can request to add an intended use of a PARNUT to the list or add/change the conditions associated with a particular intended use of a PARNUT.

Unlike with feed additives, there is no formal guidance available for PARNUT applications. When considering applications, the Committee evaluate whether the proposed change is likely to have any adverse effects on animal or human health, the environment or animal welfare. Members also assess whether the proposed intended use fulfils the particular intended nutritional purpose.

During the 2025/26 FY, the Committee considered no applications for modification of the PARNUT legislation, assimilated Regulation (EU) 2020/354.

The third type of applications that fall under the Committee’s remit are for feed detoxification processes. There is no specific guidance available for applications for feed detoxification. However, any dossier should demonstrate that the detoxification process meets the acceptability criteria established in assimilated Regulation 2015/786.  

In the period of this report, the Committee did not consider any applications for feed detoxifications processes.

2.7 Additional areas of work

In addition to assessing regulated product applications, the Committee also undertook activities to enhance its expertise and shared specialist insights to advise the FSA/FSS.

In April 2025, the Committee discussed the safety of titanium dioxide to support a request from policy. Members focused on the genotoxic potential of titanium dioxide and the potential contribution of nanoparticles to the toxicity of the compound, questioning why the Committee of Mutagenicity (COM) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reached different conclusions on genotoxicity and seeking clarity on the nanoparticle fraction of E171.

In June 2025, the Committee further discussed that EFSA and COM reached different genotoxicity conclusions due to differing study reliability criteria. Members agreed there is no evidence of carcinogenicity for E171 but highlighted uncertainty around the nanoparticle fraction and its relevance, especially for user/worker safety. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) from the Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRT) study was considered acceptable in principle and Members broadly aligned with COM’s view that evidence for in vivo genotoxicity is weak but highlighted uncertainties in the knowledge base.

Members also took part in a horizon‑scanning exercise in October 2025 in which the Committee proposed topics and subsequently engaged in wider discussions on emerging trends, risks, and opportunities that may affect the feed additives area and the organisation more broadly. The discussions covered a range of issues, including new and developing technologies and practices, supply chain pressures and skills shortages, the implications of climate change, and the potential of alternative protein ingredients.

The Secretariat prepared a paper following a discussion held by the Committee on the key issues regarding coccidiostats and potential antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Members considered the regulatory context, current practices, and the broader implications for industry and public health. They discussed their main concerns about coccidiostat use, possible approaches for managing associated risks, the implications of a potential ban, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Their discussion helped shape future work and highlighted priorities for developing a clear position. This exercise was designed to support the development of a consolidated position to guide risk assessors and policymakers as work in this area progresses.

In February 2026, Members were invited to discuss the potential uncertainties and considerations involved in conducting a risk assessment of bacteriophages and phage‑based feed additive trials. They explored key safety concerns for target species and consumers, discussed uncertainties that may arise when applying existing guidance to phage‑based products, and considered issues such as potential allergenicity, the possibility of human or mammalian infectivity, and the characterisation of lytic and lysogenic phages. The discussion helped clarify the challenges associated with evaluating phage technologies and will support more consistent and well‑informed assessments in future.

3. Membership and appointments

3.1 Appointments

The Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) comprises an independent chair and fifteen independent members (13 full members, 2 associate members). All members are appointed through open competition. 

The Committee is made up of a range of experts, covering relevant scientific disciplines and knowledge of the feed sector who provide insight, advice and the technical knowledge needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of animal feedstuffs applications. 

Members of the Committee can be appointed as full members, or associate members. Full members are recognised as experts in their field and have specific technical/ scientific expertise to complement the Committee. Associate members are not sufficiently experienced to join as full members and are assigned a mentor during their term. 

3.2 Periods of appointment

Full members and associate members are given a standard first term of three years and two years, respectively. The Chair is given a standard term of five years.

Members can be reappointed, but the maximum length of continuous service is normally ten years.

3.3 Management of interests

Interests of members and any potential conflicts of interest are managed in accordance with The FSAs Approach to Managing the Interests of its External Scientific Advisers and the ACAF Code of Practice.   

A public register is held of all members’ personal and non-personal interests, which is updated at least annually. The Chair gives members the opportunity to declare any potential conflicts of interest before any discussions. The Chair and the Secretariat are responsible for determining whether interests pose a conflict, and if so, how this should be managed. All conflicts of interests and the resulting decision are recorded in the meeting minutes.

For the register of members’ interests during the 2025/26 FY, refer to Appendix I. 

3.4 New appointments in 2025/2026

Professor Carla Viegas and Dr Barry Bradford joined the Committee as associate members on 1st April 2025.

3.5 Retirements and resignations in 2025/2026

There were no retirement or resignation from members in the 2025/26 FY.

4. The Committee’s work in 2025/26

4.1 Animal Feed Additives

During the 2025/2026 FY, the Committee considered seventeen applications for the authorisation of animal feed additives under Assimilated Regulation (EC) 1831/2003. Details of all the applications considered by the Committee are given in the Table below.

The FSA/FSS published 6 Safety Assessments based on the recommendations of the ACAF during this time. All 6 were considered in meetings during the 2025/26 FY, 3 of these were considered during the 2024/25 FY and 1 of these were considered during the 2023/24 FY.

Application	Description	Meeting Date	Committee Response
RP1592 Interban® 10 % Narasin and 0.2 % Diclazuril	Coccidiostats and histomonostats Chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying	February 2025 April 2025 July 2025 December 2025	The dossier was first assessed in February 2025. The Committee identified the additive as a potential eye, skin and respiratory irritant/sensitiser, confirmed it as non‑genotoxic and potentially efficacious, and requested further information from the applicant. In April 2025, the Committee reviewed the remaining studies that had not previously been assessed. From the tolerance study conducted in chickens, members concluded that the additive was tolerated at the recommended dose for the target species. Members were unable to reach a conclusion on the safety of the additive at the overdose levels due to the absence of histopathology data. Members noted that AMR monitoring for resistance to narasin in a range of organisms would be required, especially for the monitoring for potential co-selection of resistance to vancomycin in enterococci. The Committee concluded that extrapolation from the residue studies performed in chickens for fattening to chickens reared for laying is acceptable under the guidance. A request for further information was sent to the applicant. In July 2025, the Committee reviewed the applicant’s RFI response. Members concluded that based on the liver histopathology data, there were no treatment‑related adverse effects in chickens. The Committee agreed that tighter post‑market monitoring would be sufficient, though some members felt biological monitoring should be included in the post‑market monitoring plan. An RFI was sent to the applicant. In December 2025, the Committee discussed the applicant’s response to the RFI. Members were satisfied with the applicant’s response regarding the nomenclature of the production strain, the HACCP plan, the stability and storage information of the additive.
RP2245 GalliPro® Fit 10	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser For use in feed and water for laying hens and other birds kept for egg production or breeding. Applicant requested a modification of current authorisation to raise the concentration of active substances 10-fold.	April 2025 July 2025 September 2025  February 2026	In April 2025, the Committee reviewed the dossier and noted that further information would be required from the applicant. The Committee agreed that the additive is a respiratory sensitiser and does not need to be classified as a skin or eye irritant. It should be regarded as a skin sensitiser as it is a microbial product. The Committee also concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious. In July 2025, the Committee discussed the applicant’s RFI response. Members were satisfied with the information provided. However, additional information was requested to assess the application.  Members confirmed all unredacted EFSA opinions were provided but, due to the volume of new annexes, requested more time to review them In September 2025, the Committee assessed the RFI response. Members accepted the applicant’s non‑standard qPCR method but noted missing production‑site verification, inadequate homogeneity testing, and stability demonstrated only up to 24 hours. Members agreed that HACCP documentation was satisfactory and accepted the applicant’s risk assessment addressing EFSA’s concerns regarding the anti‑foaming agent. The Committee noted that initial shelf‑life batches were not independent and reviewed new studies, two completed and one ongoing. Members acknowledged new in vitro data confirming the additive is not an eye irritant. The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in February 2026.
RP2247 Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415	Technological additive: Silage additive For use in all animal species	April 2025 July 2025 December 2025	In April 2025, the Committee reviewed the dossier and stated that further information will be required to assess the application. Members concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Committee concluded that efficacy has been demonstrated by means of improved production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile materials. In July 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response. They were satisfied with the WGS and taxonomic identification of the strain, the additional information to demonstrate the organism is suitable for classification as a Group 1 biological agent, the HACCP plan and FAMI-QS certification. The Committee concluded that the additive is a potential skin and eye irritant and a potential skin sensitiser. Members were satisfied with the information regarding the design of the efficacy studies. Members requested further information from the applicant. In December 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response. They were satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant explaining why Total Aerobic Microbial Contamination testing is not necessary. The applicant was asked for further information regarding proficiency testing or verification of the method used for the quantitative composition testing and an updated condition of use table.
RP2074 FUMzyme® (fumonisin esterase EC 3.1.1.87) from Komagataella phaffii (DSM 32159)	Technological additive: substances for reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins The enzyme is produced by a genetically modified (GM) yeast strain, Komagatealla phaffii DSM 33835.	October 2024 September 2025 October 2025	In October 2024, the Committee reviewed the dossier and could not conclude on eye irritancy. Members concluded that the additive should be considered a potential skin sensitiser and a potential respiratory sensitiser. Members confirmed that this additive would be classed as non-irritant to the skin. The Committee could not conclude on efficacy A request for further information to support the additive seeking authorisation was sent to the applicant. In September 2025, the Committee reviewed an RFI response. They were satisfied with the information regarding the HACCP plan. The Committee asked for further information regarding the stability and homogeneity of the additive when pelleted. In October 2025, the Committee assessed the RFI response and concluded the data demonstrated homogeneity. Members requested further information regarding pelleting stability data.
RP2107 Availa® Cr Chromium chelate of DL-methionine	Zootechnical additives: other zootechnical additives For salmonids	December 2024 September 2025	An application containing the same additive for use in dairy cows (RP16) was previously submitted to FSA and partially assessed by the Committee. During the December 2024 meeting, the Committee could not conclude on the safety for target species. The Committee concluded that chromium methionine should be regarded as mutagenic at the site of exposure. Members agreed that the additive is non-irritant to skin and eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. The Committee concluded that the additive shows efficacy in relation to growth performance. A request for further information was sent to the applicant. In September 2025, the Committee discussed that they cannot conclude on the risk of genotoxicity of Chromium DL Methionine at the site of contact.
RP1696 Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser Applicant requested a modification (i) to extrapolate the use of PB6 to the category “all growing poultry”, (ii) to modify the recommended dose for chickens for fattening from 1 x 107 CFU/kg to 1 x 108 CFU/kg and iii) to authorize the use of PB6 with halofuginone	September 2024 October 2024 December 2024 February 2025 June 2025 August 2025	The dossier was assessed in the September 2024 meeting. On reviewing the application, members stated they required further information from the applicant to support the assessment. In October 2024, the Committee concluded that the additive is non-irritant to the eyes and skin. The committee could not conclude on efficacy and requested more information from the applicant. In December 2024, the Committee discussed the applicant’s response. Members agreed that that the reports provided were not acceptable, therefore, members will not be able to conclude on efficacy. In February 2025, members reviewed the additional documents provided by the applicant, concluding that the additive is potentially efficacious for use in all growing poultry species. In June 2025, the Committee was presented with the draft of the Committee’s Advice documents. The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in August 2025.
RP1275 Quantum® Blue 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) produced by Trichoderma reesei	Zootechnical additive: Digestibility enhancer For use in fin fish.	December 2024 April 2025 May 2025	The Committee considered the dossier in September 2023 and concluded that the product was efficacious for trout but no other fin fish. Additional information was requested from the applicant, and this was reviewed in January. There were still gaps in the existing documentation, so a further request for information was sent to the applicant. In December 2024, members discussed the RFI and were satisfied with the information provided by the applicant. However, more information was requested regarding methods used to measure yeasts and moulds. In April 2025, the Committee was presented with the final draft of the Committee’s Advice documents, feedback was provided on final corrections. The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in May 2025.
RP2105 Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1079	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser For use in dogs and all Canidae other than dogs	June 2025 July 2025 September 2025 January 2026	In June 2025, the Committee assessed only the efficacy section of this application. Members requested further information regarding how the additive is included in feed. The Committee concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in dogs and other Canidae at the dose proposed by the applicant. In July 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response and requested for the applicant to update the proposed label to include that the additive is not suitable for addition prior to pelleting or extrusion and clarify whether the additive is intended to be sold directly to consumers or only in an industrial setting. In September 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response and requested further updates to be made on the product label text to include that the additive is to be used on only industrial applications and that stability to heat treatment and stability in feed should also be included on the label. Members raised concerns that homogeneity had not been demonstrated for post-pelleting or post-extrusion applications. The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in January 2026.
RP2163 B-Act®	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser For use in all avian species and categories	June 2025 October 2025 March 2026	In June 2025, the Committee assessed only the efficacy section of this application. The Committee raised concerns in the efficacy trials and requested additional information from the applicant. The Committee concluded that the additive had the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets, and that this could be extrapolated to other minor growing porcine species. Members considered one of the trials in sow not suitable for assessment. In October 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response and were satisfied with the layout of the housing in the trials. The Committee concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets and lactating sows at the proposed minimum dose, therefore, efficacy could be extrapolated to all other pigs (including pigs for fattening and other growing porcine species). The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in March 2026.
RP2187 Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12674	Technological additive: Silage additive For use in all animal species and categories	June 2025 December 2025 February 2026	In June 2025, the Committee reviewed the dossier and requested further information from the applicant for Section II, Section III and Section IV of the application. Members concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser, a potential skin and eye irritant, and a potential skin sensitiser, and that measures should be taken to minimise respiratory, eye, and skin exposure. Members reviewed the efficacy studies provided in moderately difficult and difficult to ensile materials and requested in the RFI a further description of the methodology used in each study. The Committee noted that no studies had been submitted in easy to ensile forages and agreed that a conclusion could not be extrapolated to easy to ensile materials. In December 2025, the Committee discussed the RFI response and were satisfied with the proficiency testing and evidence of genetic stability. The Committee requested further information from the applicant to update the product label text to include information regarding safety recommendations and to reflect that the additive is a potential skin irritant and skin sensitiser. In February 2026, the Committee was presented with the draft of the Committee’s Advice documents.
RP2252 Vitamin B12	Nutritional additive – Vitamins, pro-vitamins and chemically well-defined substances having a similar effect For use in all animal species	June 2025 December 2025 February 2026	In June 2025, the Committee reviewed the dossier and identified several pieces of information that the applicant would need to provide to inform the assessment of the product. In December 2025, the Committee discussed the RFI response and highlighted that additional information will be required. Members stated that the application cannot progress without evidence confirming the strain’s genetic modification history and proof that all strains used are genetically identical. The Committee found that the information provided related to AMR and virulence genes, proof of the absence of DNA fragments in the final product, and the absence of AMR in the WGS analysis was sufficient. Members requested clarification on testing frequency for endotoxins and cyanide, accreditation certificates for all laboratories, justification for batch numbers and testing frequency, a comprehensive risk assessment and HACCP plan, details on overage variability in manufacturing, a stability study, updated product label and SDS, an updated literature search on the production organism, and all information previously submitted to EFSA but not yet provided to the FSA. In February 2026, the Committee reviewed the RFI response from the applicant and highlighted that clearer information was needed on the overage levels in feed to ensure that the guaranteed level is consistently delivered from the point of manufacture through to the end of the product’s shelf life. Members requested further information from the applicant regarding clarity in the stability study in swine and the method of analysis used to measure Vitamin B12 levels in the feed.
RP2071 Enterosure™ Conc Bacillus velezensis (ATCC PTA-6737) and ATCC PTA-127114), Bacillus licheniformis (ATCC-127113)	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser For use in all growing avian species	December 2024 June 2025 July 2025 September 2025	The dossier was assessed in December 2024. Further information was requested from the applicant. The Committee were unable to conclude on safety for the target species. The Committee concluded that Enterosure Conc (extrapolated to Enterosure) was not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser; it was also assumed to be a skin sensitiser. The Committee recommended measures to protect users from respiratory and dermal exposure. The Committee were unable to conclude on efficacy and requested additional information. In June 2025, the Committee reviewed the RFI response and were satisfied with the evidence on particle size distribution, confirmation that each bacterial strain is present in approximately equal proportions, WGS analysis, compatibility with coccidiostats, the updated manufacturing process, and the proposed product label. Members concluded that the additive is safe for the target species. Members requested further information to assess the efficacy of the additive. In July 2025, the Committee requested further information on the homogeneity of the additive. The Committee was presented with the draft of the Committee’s Advice documents. In September 2025, the Committee was presented with the final draft of the Committee’s Advice documents, and feedback was provided on final corrections. The Committee requested further information from the applicant requesting the latest shelf-life study results and the quantitative composition of Enterosure™.
RP2157 Bovacillus 10 ® and Bovacillus® WS  (Bacillus paralicheniformis DSM 33902 + Bacillus subtilis DSM 33903)	Zootechnical additive: gut flora stabiliser Use in salmonids Bovacillus® 10 (solid) Bovacillus® WS (water soluble)	February 2025 June 2025 September 2025 October 2025 February 2026	In February 2025, the Committee assessed the dossier and requested further information from the applicant. The Committee discussed the efficacy studies and concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious. In June 2025, the Committee evaluated the RFI response and were satisfied with the evidence provided for AMR genes, the updated label detailing the stability of the additive in water and during pelleting, the homogeneous distribution of the additive in water, the updated SDS, FAMI-QS certificate and HACCP plan. Members concluded that the additive is stable at 25°C for 2 years. The Committee requested further information from the applicant. In September 2025, the Committee was presented with the draft of the Committee’s Advice documents. In October 2025, the Committee was presented with the final draft of the Committee’s Advice documents, feedback was provided on final corrections. The FSA/FSS published a Safety Assessment in February 2026.
RP2258 Availa Cr	Zootechnical additive: other zootechnical For use in all fin fish	July 2025 September 2025 October 2025 December 2025	In July 2025, the Committee assessed the dossier and requested further information from the applicant. The Committee concluded that the additive is not an irritant to the skin or eyes. The additive should be regarded as a skin and respiratory sensitiser owing to the presence of nickel in the final product. Members noted that efficacy was only demonstrated at 0.4 mg/kg and not at the proposed minimum or maximum doses of 0.2 mg/kg and 0.6 mg/kg. The applicant was asked to provide further efficacy data. The Committee requested a more detailed post‑market monitoring plan to address the additive’s AMR potential. In September 2025, the Committee reviewed applications RP2258 and RP2107, both concerning the Availa Cr additive. Members concluded that chromium methionine should be considered mutagenic at the site of exposure and that they could not conclude on the genotoxicity risk of chromium DL‑methionine at the site of contact. In October 2025, the Committee reviewed the applicant’s RFI response. Members were satisfied with the information provided by the applicant. They requested further details on the tolerance study for all fin fish, along with verification and validation reports for the analytical methods used to test undesirable substances/impurities. The Committee concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all fin fish, with a minimum level of 0.2 mg Cr/kg for salmonids and 0.5 mg/kg for all other fin fish. Members were satisfied with the post-market monitoring plan provided. In December 2025, the Committee reviewed the applicant’s RFI response and requested additional evidence of proficiency testing for undesirable substances, clarification on the extent of haemolysis observed, and a proposed default feed‑intake value for fin fish to support the derivation of a safe daily dose.
RP1087 Guanidinoacetic acid (Creamino®)	Zootechnical additives: other zootechnical additives. For use in all animal species.	July 2025	The application was previously assessed by ACAF at its April 2023 meeting; it was initially submitted as a nutritional additive for use in all animal species. ACAF concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment, and that it could be considered efficacious as a nutritional additive in growing pigs and all growing poultry. No efficacy conclusion was reached for other animal species. EFSA recommended changing the category of the additive from nutritional to zootechnical. The ACAF concluded that no additional safety risks would be expected from the re-categorisation. In the July 2025 meeting, the Committee have been asked to review the efficacy data and conclude whether the evidence presented is sufficient to conclude on the zootechnical properties of the additive. Members concluded that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate efficacy as a zootechnical additive for growing poultry and that the additive has the potential for efficacy in growing pigs. No conclusion could be drawn for other species or developmental stages.
RP2276 3-NOP	Zootechnical additive: Substances that favourably affect the environment For use in all growing ruminants (pre-ruminating and ruminating stage)	September 2025 October 2025	In September 2025, the Committee reviewed an application that was previously authorised by ACAF for use in ruminants for reproduction and milk production, the applicant is now seeking a new use in all growing ruminants. A full risk assessment of the application was not carried out in this meeting. No concerns were raised for the identity and characterisation of the additive. Members were satisfied that the previous conclusions regarding safety for the consumer remained valid. The Committee assessed the efficacy trials, they stated 2 of the calf trials could not be considered. Further information was requested for the third calf trial. No major concerns were identified regarding the trials in cattle for fattening. In October 2025, the Committee carried out a full risk assessment of this application. Further information was requested from the applicant, including more recent testing for impurities, clarity on the silicon dioxide used in the additive, dusting potential data in the correct units, further details of the stability trials and clarity on the doses and design of the tolerance study for the safety of the target species. The Committee agreed with previous conclusions on user safety that the additive is potentially harmful by inhalation and should also be considered corrosive to eyes and as a skin irritant. Members were satisfied with the additional information provided for Trial 3 in calves and found no significant link between treatment and the frequency of pneumonia or other health related events. They also accepted Trial 2 and considered the study for this assessment. The Committee concluded that the additive is efficacious in reducing the enteric methane in cattle for fattening.
RP2268 XTRACT RUMINANT, CODE X60-7065	Zootechnical additive: Substances that favourably affect the environment For use in dairy cows and cows for reproduction	September 2025	In September 2025, the Committee reviewed the dossier and noted that the applicant needed to provide further information. The Committee concluded that the additive is a skin and a respiratory sensitiser, as well as a skin and eye irritant. Members recommended appropriate safety measures tailored to these risks, particularly considering the presence of nanoparticles. Members concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in dairy cows and cows for reproduction.

5. Financial statement 

The ACAF is an independent SAC but does not have an independent budget or expenditure. The operation of the Committee is funded by the FSA.

In the period of this report, the daily fee rates for members were: 

• £400 per day for the Chair 

• £300 per day for Members 

• £150 per day for Associate Members 

The expenditure is recorded formally in the accounts of the FSA. In the period of this report, costs for this support of the Committee (covering members expenses and fees and administrative cost for the meetings) were £82,373. 

6. Appendix I – Information about the Committee 

6.1 Members 

The Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) comprises an independent chair and fifteen independent members.

Professor Nick Wheelhouse (Interim Chair) 

Professor Nick Wheelhouse is Professor of Comparative Infectious Disease at Edinburgh Napier University, he holds a BSc in Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition from Newcastle University and a PhD in Animal Science from the University of Aberdeen.

Professor Nicholas Jonsson

Professor Nicholas Jonsson (Nick) is a veterinary surgeon, independent consultant on animal health and production, the editor in chief of the Journal of Dairy Research, and Honorary Professor of Animal Health and Production at the University of Glasgow.

Dr Barry Bradford

Dr Barry Bradford is a lecturer and research lead at The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

Martin Briggs 

Martin Briggs is a feed industry expert with over 46 years’ experience in farm animal feeds. He has a degree in Applied Biology and is currently an independent feed industry consultant. He was previously employed as a technical manager for GLW Feeds Ltd, a large multi-species compound feed manufacturer, with previous roles as mill and operations manager.

Professor Emily Burton 

Emily Burton is Professor of Sustainable Food Production and co-lead for Nottingham Trent University Sustainable Futures Research Theme. She has worked alongside the poultry industry on research programmes for 25 years and now leads the University’s Poultry Nutrition Research Unit.

Professor Katrina Campbell 

Professor Katrina Campbell is a Professor in Food Security and Diagnostics within the Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences at Queen’s University Belfast.

Hannah Kane 

Ms Hannah Kane has over 14 years of experience in the feed and food industry specifically in the Agri supply trade industry. She has a BSc (Hons) degree in Nutrition from the Robert Gordon University and CQFW Level 7 in Livestock Nutrition & Feeding from the University of Reading and is currently working as a quality, health & safety assistant manager for Cefetra Ltd.

Susan MacDonald 

Susan MacDonald is a chemical safety scientist with over 32 years’ experience working on analysis and providing advice and training on mycotoxins and natural toxins in food and feed.

Christine McAlinden 

Christine McAlinden a board-certified toxicologist with over 25 years’ experience in the testing and assessment of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, feed additives, cosmetics and biocides.

Dr Donald Morrison 

Dr Donald Morrison is a microbiologist of 30 years’ plus experience working in the field of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

Derek Renshaw 

Derek Renshaw is an independent toxicologist with over 40 years of experience of assessing the safety of materials, with particular reference to the chemical safety of substances to which humans might be exposed.

Dr Michael Salter 

Dr. Michael Salter was a scientific advisor to the senior leadership team of AB Agri Ltd. For in excess of 9 years he worked as an innovation scout and research manager for AB Agri looking to understand innovation in the commercial livestock industry.

Dr Adam Smith 

Dr Adam Smith holds a BSc in Animal Sciences from the University of London and a PhD in Poultry Nutrition from Harper Adams University. He has over 27 years of experience of working in the global animal nutrition industry for market leading companies operating in the feed premix and additive space.

Christel Wake 

Christel Wake holds a BSc (Hons) and a Masters Degree (by Research) in Chemistry from the University of York. She has over 25 years of experience in agriscience, working for both government and industry, and she specialises in residues in food and dietary risk assessment.

Dr Helen Warren 

Dr Helen Warren achieved her primary degree in Animal Science from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, followed by her PhD in fatty acids in beef from the Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol.

Professor Carla Viegas

Professor Carla Viegas graduated in Environmental Health from the Lisbon School of Health Technology – Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon, holds a Master’s degree in Safety and Ergonomics from the University of Lisbon and a PhD in Occupational and Environmental Health from NOVA University Lisbon. Her primary field of study is occupational and environmental microbiology, in which she has led and contributed to numerous national and international research projects.

6.2 Members interests  

A register of members’ interests, both current and historic, is available on the ACAF website. The personal and non-personal interests of members during the period of this report are detailed below:

Professor Nick Wheelhouse (Interim Chair)

Personal

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Professor, Edinburgh Napier University (2016 - present). Visiting Lecturer, University of Liverpool (2016-present). Associate Editor, Reproduction & Fertility (2020-present).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Innovate UK assessor (2022-present). PhD examination The University of Sydney (2025). MRes examination The University of Kent (2026).
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	Lead Global Research Alliance Animal Health and Greenhouse Gas Intensity Network (2021-present). Member of the FAO Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) technical advisory committee (2025-present).
Other personal interests.	Honorary Fellow Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh (2024-present). Visiting Scientist International Livestock Research Institute (2024-present).

Non-Personal

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Indirect support.	Partner in a research consortium which includes the AB Agri Innovation lab as a partner organisation (2021-present). Member of research consortium funded by Global Methane Fund via Environmental Defense fund on Animal Health and Climate Change (2023-present). Research Funding from Algisys £116k for work on microalgae as a alternative protein source for aquaculture (2025-present).
Trusteeships.	Trustee for the British Society for Animal Science (2023-present).

Dr Barry Bradford

Personal

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Employed by the University of Edinburgh; (2000-present). Histology Facility Manager at The Roslin Institute; (2013-present). Lecturer at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies; (2021-Present).
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	Member of Prospect trade union; (2002-present). Local Representative for Prospect; (2013-present).
Other personal interests.	Reviewer Board member for International Journal of Molecular Sciences; (2021-present). Ad hoc reviewer for numerous scientific journals; (2011-present).

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Indirect support.	Funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) via the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

Martin Briggs 

Personal 

Category of Interest

Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)

Consultancies and other fee-paid work.

Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) (fee paying consultancy) 2023-present. Universal Feed Assurance Scheme (UFAS) auditor and trainer, KIWA (2023-present). Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) auditor, NSF (2023-present). Tesco feed mill auditor, NSF & FACS (2025-present). United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) assessor (2021-present). Member of AIC UFAS Working and Review Groups, Manufacturing Committee and Joint Scheme Development Group (fee paying work 2023- present, and  unremunerated c. 2010 -2023). ABN (fee paying consultancy 2025). Anitox UK (fee paying consultancy 2024-2025). ForFarmers UK (fee paying consultancy 2024). 2Agriculture (fee paying consultancy 2023). Progressus Agrischool (fee paying consultancy 2023). FSA member of ACAF and Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) (2019-present).

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Professor Emily Burton 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Nottingham Trent University (NTU), (2007 – present).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	July 2022: Consultancy for Avara Foods Ltd – conducted through current employer (NTU): Independent review of their trial data. . August 2025: Consultancy for 2 Sisters Food Group – conducted through current employer (NTU): Draft research proposal to answer a commercially relevant question.
Shareholdings	Shareholdings in Si Active Ltd  - Company number 06932163.
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	Director: Egg and Poultry Industry Conference Ltd; (2021 – present). World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA) European Working Group on Poultry Nutrition: Chair and UK representative; (2011 – present). WPSA UK branch member: (1996 – present).
Other personal interests.	Husband is lay member of FSA Committee on Toxicology (COT).

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Indirect support.	Travel costs paid to speak at conferences for the following organisations: Animal Nutrition Association of Canadia; 2025. European Federation of the World’s Poultry Science Association; 2023. South African Feed Manufacturers’ Association 2023. Kemin Industries Customer seminars 2024-25
Trusteeships.	Trustee: Gordon Memorial Trust (2019- present). Trustee: British Poultry Science Trust (2020- present).
Other non-personal interests.	Ongoing, regular commissioning of research or other work by, or advice from, staff who work in a unit for which a member is responsible: research commissioned for Avara Foods Ltd, 2 Sisters Food Group, ForFarmers, ABAgri, Kemin, Danisco, Alltech, Arden Biotech, Premier Nutrition, Deepbranch Biotech; Green Plains, Clonbiotech, RSPCAFreedomFoods, Compassion in World Farming

Professor Katrina Campbell 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Queen’s University Belfast.
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Queen’s University Belfast.
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). Royal Society of Biology (RSB).

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Professor Nicholas Jonsson  

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	University of Glasgow (2009-2024). Harbro Ltd (January 2025-December 2025).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Editor in Chief, Journal of Dairy Research, funded by Hannah Dairy Research Foundation. .Fundacao para e Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) Portugal (2024). BHJ Foods UK Ltd (2023). Narodowe Centrum Nauki (National Science Centre, Poland) (2025-2026). Boehringer Ingelheim (2025-2026).
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (2009-present). Labour Party UK (2021-2024). Glasgow Rugby League (2020-2024). Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. American Dairy Science Association (2023-present).
Other personal interests.	All honorary positions. Editorial Board, Journal of Dairy Research (2021-present). Editorial Board, The Veterinary Journal (2015-present). Specialist Editor, International Journal for Parasitology – Drugs and Drug Resistance (2012-present). Adjunct Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Australia (2022-present).

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Trusteeships.	Trustee, Hannah Dairy Research Foundation (2021-2025). Trustee and Vice President (VP), British Society of Animal Science (2024- present).

Hannah Kane 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Cefetra Ltd (2012 - present).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Member of Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) working groups Feed Materials Assurance Scheme (FEMAS) and Trade Assurance Scheme for Combinable Crops (TASCC).

Non-Personal  

No non-personal interests registered.

Susan MacDonald 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Fera Science Ltd (and predecessors) (1990 - present).

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Indirect support.	Current FSA contracts awarded to Fera where member is lead scientist: National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for Chemical Hazards in food & feed, C284219, 2025-2029. NRL for food & feed additives, C282048, 2025-2029. Mycotoxins and Plant Toxins in vegetable based foods, 2025-2026, C375823. Hydrogen cyanide bioavailability, FS00535 C302108. Current Food Standards Scotland contract where member is lead scientist. Contaminants in plant proteins (extension), FSS/2023/020, 2025-26.
Trusteeships.	Spouse is Chair of Coeliac UK Research Strategy Board since 2023.

Christine McAlinden 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	toXcel International Ltd (2011 - Present).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	As part of my job, I provide independent scientific consultancy to the chemical, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry. Mostly related to non-clinical safety and registration requirements.
Clubs, other organisations and advocacy groups	British Toxicology Society (1991 - Present). Society of Toxicologist (US) (2004 - Present). UK and EU Register of Toxicologists (2001 - Present). Society of Biology (2011 - Present). Society of Cosmetic Scientists (2012 - Present).

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Dr Donald Morrison 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Associate Professor, Edinburgh Napier University (ENU) (Employee) (2014 - present).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Associate Editor JAC-AMR journal (2022 - present). PhD external examiner (2014 - present). Research funding application reviewer (2014 - present). Food Standards Scotland – Expert Advisor Group (AMR short term project).
Other personal interests.	Grant Funding Panel Member. ENU Co-I on the NHS Assure Research Service Commissioning Partner (since 2022). Scottish Healthcare Built Environment Network (SHBEN) - Leadership Group.<br British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2023 - present) – Member. International Microbiology Society (2015 – 2024) – Member. Microbiology Society (2015 - 2024) – Member.

Non-Personal

Category of Interest

Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)

Indirect support.

ENU Director of Studies for a Medical Research Scotland funded PhD Fellowship - Scottish Water are industrial partner organisation which contribute to the student stipend (2022 - present). ENU Director of Studies for a SUPER DTP Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded PhD Fellowship - Scottish Environment Protection Agency are CASE partner organisation which contribute to the student research budget (2023 - present).

Derek Renshaw 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Retired.

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Land and property.	One personal dwelling and one rental property.

Dr Michael Salter 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Retired.
Shareholdings.	Broad spectrum Index funds No individual company shares.
Other personal interests.	Personal interest in microbiome research.

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Dr Adam Smith 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Chr. Hansen (UK) Ltd.

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Christel Wake 

Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Corteva Agriscience (until September 2025).
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Member of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF), (March 2024 – present). Member of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), (May 2025 – present). Co-opted member to the Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP), (December 2025 – present).

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

Dr Helen Warren 

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	None.
Consultancies and other fee-paid work.	Works for Alltech on a self-employed basis as their European Technical Manager for Ruminants and Horses (2008 - present).

Non-Personal 

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Trusteeships.	Senior vice president and a trustee of the British Society of Animal Science. However, the Society has no investment in related industry bodies.
Other non-personal interests.	On the Membership Committee for the Nutrition Society.

Professor Carla Viegas

Personal  

Category of Interest	Organisation/body and nature of interest (period)
Direct employment.	Full professor and researcher at Lisbon School of Health/Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon. (2003 - present).

Non-Personal 

No non-personal interests registered.

7. Appendix II Self-assessment against the Good Practice Guidelines 

In line with the Good Practice Guidelines for Scientific Advisory Committees, the Committee have reviewed their application of the principles of the Guidelines: 

7.1 Defining the problem and the approach 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
1. The FSA will ensure that issues it asks an SAC to address are clearly defined and take account of stakeholder expectations in discussion with the SAC Secretariat and where necessary the SAC Chair. The SAC Chair will refer back to the FSA if discussion suggests that further iteration and discussion of the task is necessary. Where an SAC proposes to initiate a piece of work the SAC Chair and Secretariat will discuss this with FSA to ensure the definition and rationale for the work and its expected use by the FSA are clear.	Yes.	The role of the Committee is clearly defined. The Chair will refer back to the Secretariat if further clarification is needed.

7.2 Seeking input 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
2. The Secretariat will ensure that stakeholders are consulted at appropriate points in the SAC’s considerations. It will consider with the FSA whether and how stakeholder views need to be taken into account in helping to identify the issue and frame the question for the committee.	Yes.	The outputs of the Committee are shared with the relevant stakeholders for comment and checking the presence of confidential information.
3. Wherever possible, SAC discussions should be held in public.	Yes.	Due to commercial sensitivities and the nature of ACAF’s work, the majority of discussions cannot be held in public. However, the minutes (excluding any commercially sensitive information) are published in the ACAF website.
4. The scope of literature searches made on behalf of the SAC will be clearly set out.	N/A.	There were no literature searches made on behalf of the Committee in 2025/26.
5. Steps will be taken to ensure that all available and relevant scientific evidence is rigorously considered by the committee, including consulting external/additional scientific experts who may know of relevant unpublished or pre-publication data.	Yes.	The Committee is comprised of a diverse panel of experts who critically assess all scientific evidence. If needed, the Committee, with the assistance of the Secretariat, seeks further information from other Committees or individual experts.
6. Data from stakeholders will be considered and weighted according to quality by the SAC.	Yes.	The SAC critically assess all scientific evidence provided by applicants; better quality data is given more weighting.
7. Consideration by the Secretariat and the Chair (and where appropriate the whole SAC) will be given to whether expertise in other disciplines will be needed.	Yes.	The Chair and the Secretariat often discuss the gaps in expertise of the Committee, to inform the yearly recruitment campaigns and any future work needs.
8. Consideration will be given by the Secretariat or by the SAC, in discussion with the FSA, as to whether other SACs need to be consulted.	Yes	When applicable, input is requested from other SACs (for example the Committee on Toxicity) if additional expertise is needed. This was not necessary in the period of this report.

7.3 Validation 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
9. Study design, methods of measurement and the way that analysis of data has been carried out will be assessed by the SAC.	Yes.	The Committee critically assess the experimental design and data analysis of all dossiers.
10. Data will be assessed by the committee in accordance with the relevant principles of good practice, e.g. qualitative social science data will be assessed with reference to guidance from the Government’s Chief Social Researcher.	Yes.	All data is assessed against the legislation and any published guidance documents. The Committee also evaluate the methods used to generate the data and ensure that they are in agreement with recognised standards/ quality assurance schemes (for example, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), etc.)
11. Formal statistical analyses will be included wherever appropriate. To support this, each SAC will have access to advice on quantitative analysis and modelling as needed.	Yes	The Committee’s expertise allows for evaluation of statistical analyses. Further support is available, when required, through other Committees and external experts.
12. When considering what evidence needs to be collected for assessment, the following points will be considered: the potential for the need for different data for different parts of the UK or the relevance to the UK situation for any data originating outside the UK; and whether stakeholders can provide unpublished data.	Yes.	The Committee consider the relevance of any data submitted to the UK feed/farming market, particularly when originating from outside the UK. The Committee often consider unpublished data from applicants and request additional information if required.
13. The list of references will make it clear which references have been subject to external peer review, and which have been peer reviewed through evaluation by the Committee, and if relevant, any that have not been peer reviewed.	Yes	Application dossiers include a list of references which make it clear whether they have been peer reviewed.

7.4 Uncertainty 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
14. When reporting outcomes, SACs will make explicit the level and type of uncertainty (both limitations on the quality of the available data and lack of knowledge) associated with their advice.	Yes.	The ACAF clearly outline their conclusions and uncertainties are identified.
15. Any assumptions made by the SAC will be clearly spelled out, and, in reviews, previous assumptions will be challenged.	Yes.	Any assumptions are clearly labelled as such in the Committee’s Advice document.
16. Data gaps will be identified and their impact on uncertainty assessed by the SAC.	Yes.	Data gaps and their impact on uncertainty are recorded in the Committee’s Advice document.
17. An indication will be given by the SAC about whether the evidence base is changing or static, and if appropriate, how developments in the evidence base might affect key assumptions and conclusions.	Yes.	The Committee considers the latest scientific developments when carrying out their evaluations. This is taken into consideration within the regulatory framework of the ACAF’s work.

7.5 Drawing conclusions 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
18. The SAC will be broad-minded, acknowledging where conflicting views exist and considering whether alternative interpretations fit the same evidence.	Yes.	Members critically evaluate any conclusions made by applicants and consider alternative explanations.
19. Where both risks and benefits have been considered, the committee will address each with the same rigour, as far as possible; it will make clear the degree of rigour and uncertainty, and any important constraints, in reporting its conclusions.	N/A.	The nature of the ACAF’s work in the past year did not require the need to valuate benefits.
20. SAC decisions will include an explanation of where differences of opinion have arisen during discussions, specifically where there are unresolved issues, and why conclusions have been reached. If it is not possible to reach a consensus, a minority report may be appended to the main report, setting out the differences in interpretation and conclusions, and the reasons for these, and the names of those supporting the minority report.	Yes.	The final opinions are adopted by consensus, identifying the key issues and generally explaining the reasoning behind the Committee’s conclusions.
21. The SAC’s interpretation of results, recommended actions or advice will be consistent with the quantitative and/or qualitative evidence and the degree of uncertainty associated with it.	Yes	The Committee base their conclusions and advice on the evidence, taking uncertainty into account.
22. SACs will make recommendations about general issues that may have relevance for other committees.	Yes.

7.6 Communicating SACs conclusions 

Principle	Compliance	Evidence/ additional information
23. Conclusions will be expressed by the SAC in clear, simple terms and use the minimum caveats consistent with accuracy.	Yes.	Conclusions in the Committee’s Advice documents are aimed to be drafted in a clear and concise way.
24. It will be made clear by the SAC where assessments have been based on the work of other bodies and where the SAC has started afresh, and there will be a clear statement of how the current conclusions compare with previous assessments.	Yes.	The Committee’s Advice documents clearly outline where assessments are based on the work of other bodies, such as the AFFAJEG. The work and conclusions of each body are well explained.
25. The conclusions will be supported by a statement about their robustness and the extent to which judgement has had to be used.	Yes.	The ACAF conclusions specify the regulatory framework under which they were undertaken. Any science-based judgement used is described within the conclusions.
26. As standard practice, the SAC secretariat will publish a full set of references (including the data used as the basis for risk assessment and other SAC opinions) at as early a stage as possible to support openness and transparency of decision-making. Where this is not possible, reasons will be clearly set out, explained and a commitment made to future publication wherever possible.	Yes.	The regulatory and guidance framework are published in the main FSA website. The specific data from dossiers on which the risk assessment may take place cannot be made public.
27. The amount of material withheld by the SAC or FSA as being confidential will be kept to a minimum. Where it is not possible to release material, the reasons will be clearly set out, explained and a commitment made to future publication wherever possible.	Yes.	Commercially sensitive information is kept confidential, but the Committee and the FSA require the applicant to justify why such information should be confidential. The FSA can refuse a request if they deem it unacceptable.
28. Where proposals or papers being considered by the FSA Board rest on scientific evidence produced by a SAC, the Chair of the SAC (or a nominated expert member) will be invited to the table at the Open Board meetings at which the paper is discussed. To maintain appropriate separation of risk assessment and risk management processes, the role of the Chairs will be limited to providing an independent view and assurance on how their committee’s advice has been reflected in the relevant policy proposals, and to answer Board members’ questions on the science. The Chairs may also, where appropriate, be invited to provide factual briefing to Board members about particular issues within their committees’ remits, in advance of discussion at open Board meetings.	N/A.	No proposals or papers were taken to the FSA board in 2025/2026.
29. The SAC will seek (and FSA will provide) timely feedback on actions taken (or not taken) in response to the SAC’s advice, and the rationale for these.	Yes.	Following preparation of the Committee’s Advice document, the FSA publish a Safety Assessment based on the Committee’s recommendations. All decisions made by the FSA following the Committee’s recommendations (including the outcome of the risk management step) are given as updates in meetings.

In addition to reviewing their application of the principles of the Good Practice Guidelines, the Committee also self-assess the degree to which they feel they have worked effectively to the Guidelines.