Transparency data

Horizon Scanning 2025/2026

Published 31 July 2026

1. Executive summary

At their October 2025 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) carried out a horizon scanning exercise based on four main themes, identified through a previous scoping exercise. These were: Innovation in farming and feed technologies, supply chain and regulatory pressures, the accelerating impacts of climate change, and the growing prominence of alternative protein sources.

The emergence of new technologies such as smart farming systems, phytogenic additives, precision breeding, and bacteriophage-based interventions is examined. These developments offer real potential to support efficiency, animal health and sustainability, but their uptake is uneven and often hampered by regulatory uncertainty, high implementation costs, and in some cases the absence of viable detection methods. The Committee noted that greater flexibility and clarity in regulatory pathways could prevent the risk of delaying the UK’s adoption of some of these technologies.

The Committee considered several pressures affecting feed supply chains and the wider regulatory environment. Divergent policies within the UK on precision-bred products, ongoing discussions around pesticide residue rules, and shortages of specialist research organisations all present challenges for feed availability, compliance and resilience. These issues reinforce the need for coherent, science-based regulation and adequate technical capacity to support industry and maintain confidence in the system.

Regarding climate change, the Committee mentioned rising risks associated with fungal resistance to azoles, increased mycotoxin contamination in feed and bedding, and a resurgence of ergot linked to shifts toward more sustainable soil management practices. These developments illustrate the interconnected nature of environmental change, agricultural methods and feed safety, and point to the importance of a coordinated One Health approach.

The discussion on alternative protein feed ingredients highlighted opportunities and need for caution. Novel inputs (from insect protein and microalgae to fermentation byproducts and redesigned crops) could support long-term resilience, but each carries safety, sustainability and regulatory considerations that must be addressed through robust evidence and proportionate oversight.

This document explores the thoughts of ACAF in greater depth around these main four areas.

2.   Theme 1: New and upcoming technologies and practices

2.1 Smart Farming Technologies and Feed Management

Smart farming technologies are transforming agricultural practices by integrating tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), drones, sensors, and predictive modelling for the measurement and management of animals. These innovations aim to enhance productivity, operational efficiency and wider management systems. The Committee discussed the adoption of these technologies, their potential benefits, and the associated challenges, risks, and regulatory considerations.

Members noted that smart farming technologies are increasingly being used to improve feed efficiency and enable precision feeding. Automatic milking systems can tailor feeding for individual dairy animals, while weighing mats linked to facial recognition can support real-time monitoring of pigs. In poultry farming, accurately weighing individual birds remains challenging owing to frequent movement on and off weighing devices, and precision feeding for pasture-based livestock remains limited due to the inability to track individual consumption. Despite these limitations, smart farming offers environmental benefits through optimised feed deployment and improved farm profitability. Technologies such as AI-driven weight prediction and integrated feeding systems are already being adopted in the dairy sector, enabling earlier problem detection and better management.

The Committee considered the broader implications, including potential cybersecurity risks, as technology-driven systems could be vulnerable to attacks that compromise food and feed safety. Connectivity limitations in rural areas and the costs associated with integrating advanced systems were also identified as potential barriers to implementation. Concerns were raised about the potential for mismanagement or system failures leading to issues such as overfeeding or unintended entry of additive into the food chain.

Members noted that instances where smart farming is currently being adopted, such as the dairy industry, suggests that uptake may vary depending on sector-specific needs and resources and discussed the importance of the cost of adopting technological solutions not becoming a barrier for small to medium producers in the UK. While these innovations can deliver efficiency and sustainability benefits, their success depends on integration with feed management systems and stringent data protection measures. Public perception of these technologies as safe, contrasts with concerns surrounding cybersecurity.

2.2 Phytogenic Feed Additives

Phytogenic feed additives, including essential oils and other plant-derived compounds, offer potential as natural alternatives to antibiotics in animal health and production. Reviews suggest these additives can enhance multiple aspects of commercial livestock farming, offering potential benefits for performance, health, and sustainability. However, their complexity and variability create challenges for assessing efficacy, evaluating safety, and establishing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Members noted that phytogenics are frequently marketed as sensory additives but are increasingly associated with zootechnical claims, raising questions about their classification under existing regulations. As with probiotics, efficacy of phytogenics varies across farming systems, making standardisation and consistent performance difficult to achieve.

Members noted safety concerns regarding the use of seaweed as feed, particularly the carcinogenic properties of bromoform, which is found at high levels in red seaweed, as well as the potential for excessive iodine concentrations in milk from cows fed seaweed. Members also noted concerns around the chemical extraction of oils and protein as they can lead to notable solvent levels in the extract. Production methods must be safe and avoid introducing impurities, and there is uncertainty about whether phytogenic feed additives produced via fermentation would be acceptable under existing regulations.

Additionally, the Panel noted that essential oils often show substantial variability in composition, complicating regulatory evaluation. Restricting antimicrobial use may increase reliance on phytogenics, potentially introducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) risks. The composition of an essential oil depends on the material of biological origin and the manufacturing process(es) and may depend on further processing and purification. Therefore, botanicals may have a larger variation in the qualitative and quantitative composition than synthesised chemicals. The production of substances of biological origin is influenced by the geographical areas and climatic conditions where the plant is grown, and thus the production may differ from year to year. Therefore, the nature and concentrations of substances vary naturally and affect the quantitative and qualitative composition of the botanical active substance. Essential oils used in plant protection require comprehensive characterisation and identity verification; this is usually achieved through identification of key constituents contributing to the products specification and selecting the appropriate phytochemical marker(s). However, many phytogenic products contain variable ingredients and concentrations, complicating assessment of product consistency and variability.

The absence of clear regulatory definitions and standards, and harmonised testing protocols remains a major challenge. Environmental variability, inconsistent quality, and the absence of standardised production and safety testing protocols hinder the substantiation of efficacy claims, further complicating regulatory oversight. Intellectual property for essential oil mixtures is difficult to protect, resulting in little incentive for investment required to take a product through the feed additives authorisation process. Further concerns regarding intellectual property were raised by the Committee, with emphasis on ensuring fair return to countries of origin for bioresources.

Potential toxicity from essential oils, although often considered by the public to be low, cannot be ignored. Assessment would require an extensive literature search to identify data related to chemical composition of the plant extract, its botanical preparations and potential presence of substances of concern. Essential oils often contain a number of allergens, and many are skin sensitizers. Oils have not been subject to the same level of investigation as single-moiety substances, which adds uncertainty to their safety profile. Unsafe extraction or fermentation processes could introduce impurities, creating additional hazards for animal and consumer health.

In summary, phytogenic feed additives offer potential opportunities for improving livestock health and reducing reliance on antibiotics. However, their adoption requires clear regulatory frameworks to appropriately assess safety and efficacy. While biological and environmental variability limits standardisation of source materials, consistency in production methods and clear guidance on classification and claims will be essential to ensure responsible use and maintain consumer confidence.

2.3 Precision Breeding

Precision Breeding (PB) technology represents a significant advancement in genetic improvement for agriculture, offering opportunities to enhance productivity and sustainability. In March 2023, PB became law in England, marking a major regulatory milestone. However, this acceptance has not been mirrored in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where PB-derived goods are classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This divergence creates potential challenges for supply chains and market alignment within the UK.

Members noted that the inability to detect PB in feed materials poses a critical issue for traceability and regulatory compliance. Currently, no commercial test exists to identify PB modifications, particularly those introduced through CRISPR gene editing systems. These changes can be virtually undetectable, raising questions about how oversight can be maintained.

The Panel expressed concerns about whether classifying PB goods as GMOs is scientifically accurate and whether objections to PB is based on actual risk or misunderstanding of the technology. The discussion highlighted the potential risk of excessive regulatory pressure leading to companies adopting PB without disclosure, if oversight mechanisms are perceived as impractical or overly restrictive. Public perception issues, particularly concerns about GMOs, could influence market acceptance and consumer confidence.

Members suggested that blockchain tracking systems may be required to manage supply chains effectively, as physical detection methods appear impractical. The current position in the EU and potential alignment under Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures were also raised as important considerations for future policy development.

In summary, Precision Breeding technology offers significant potential benefits for agriculture but introduces complex regulatory and ethical challenges. Detection of gene edits is nearly impossible with current technology, making traceability dependent on voluntary or mandatory labelling and digital tracking systems. Divergence in regulatory approaches within the UK and between the UK and EU could create substantial trade and compliance issues.

2.4 Bacteriophage and Fed Vaccines

Bacteriophage technology and fed vaccines represent emerging innovations in animal health and feed management, offering opportunities to reduce antibiotic dependance and introduce new strategies for disease prevention and microbiome management. However, their integration into agricultural systems raises complex regulatory, safety, and practical considerations that require careful evaluation.

Members noted that bacteriophage therapy is gaining traction as alternatives to antibiotics, with potential to impact agriculture if clear regulatory pathways are established. A key challenge is the dynamic nature of phage mixtures, which often requires modification when bacterial resistance develops. Current regulatory frameworks require each phage combination to be licensed separately, which is incompatible with the dynamic nature of resistance management and limits real-world application. Without adaptive regulations the UK risks falling behind global competitors in adopting these technologies.

Fed vaccines delivering antigenic protein fragments through livestock feed also pose classification challenges if these fragments are incorporated into regular rations. Members highlighted that while fed vaccines have existed in oral dose form, new technologies could embed them within crop-based feed, further complicating oversight.

Risks include regulatory delays in authorisation of adapted phage mixtures leading to unauthorised or unregulated use of these technologies, undermining safety and oversight. For fed vaccines, misclassification or inadequate regulation could result in improper use, posing risks to animal health and food safety. Global divergence in regulatory approaches may also create trade barriers and compliance challenges.

In summary, bacteriophage and fed vaccine technologies represent significant opportunities for innovation in animal health and feed management. However, their successful adoption depends on the development of adaptive, science-based regulatory frameworks that address safety, efficacy, and classification challenges.

3.   Theme 2: Supply chain issues and skill shortages

3.1 Regulatory Divergence and Uncertainty: Precision Breeding and Labelling

Regulatory divergence within the UK regarding precision breeding and associated labelling requirements was identified by the Panel as a significant challenge for agricultural governance and trade. England has introduced a distinct regulatory pathway for precision bred organisms (PBOs) under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland continue to classify these organisms as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under stricter EU aligned rules. This divergence creates difficulties for supply chains, enforcement, and market confidence.

Members highlighted that the UK Internal Market Act permits products legally marketed in one nation to be sold across the others, with Northern Ireland as an exception due to its adherence to EU regulations. This legislative framework mitigates some trade barriers but does not resolve underlying regulatory inconsistencies. The divergence has been widely debated in Parliament, with proposals aimed at reducing its impact on regulators and industry.

Concerns were raised about the long-term implications of sustained regulatory uncertainty, including reduced regulator engagement, declining enforcement capacity, and weakening compliance. Ongoing ambiguity could marginalise regulatory authorities and weaken oversight, particularly as precision breeding technologies advance and detection remains challenging. Members also questioned whether current labelling practices are adequate to maintain transparency and consumer trust in the absence of reliable detection methods.

The primary challenge is achieving regulatory alignment across UK nations while accommodating scientific and technological developments in precision breeding. Divergence also complicates international trade, as alignment with EU standards remains an important consideration for market access. Inconsistent approaches across nations may lead to inadvertent non-compliance or exploitation of legislative gaps. Furthermore, prolonged ambiguity could erode regulatory capacity and discourage investment in innovative technologies. Public perception issues, particularly concerns about GMOs, may exacerbate these risks and influence policy debates.

In summary, regulatory divergence on precision breeding and labelling represents a critical governance challenge for UK agriculture. Alignment of standards and development of clear, science-based policies will be essential to maintain market integrity, support innovation, and uphold public trust.

3.2 GMO Presence in Livestock Feed Supply Chains

The presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in livestock feed supply chains is an increasingly significant issue for global agriculture. Over 80% of soya used in animal feed is genetically modified, and future developments in crop biotechnology are expected to expand GMO use to other crops traditionally considered non-GMO. These changes are driven by the need to enhance nutritional qualities and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Members highlighted that GMO identification is already challenging and will become increasingly difficult as gene editing technologies advance, particularly where modifications involve minimal genetic changes that are not readily detectible. This underscores the need for the adaptable regulatory frameworks to ensure transparency and maintain consumer confidence, recognising that that end-product detection alone may be insufficient. Current approaches, which often rely on political rather than scientific reasoning, risk blocking innovative solutions to supply chain vulnerabilities at a time when GMO crops already play a critical and expanding role in global feed systems. The central challenge is to develop regulatory systems that balance innovation with safety, particularly as existing detection methods may be insufficient for gene edited crops and international alignment of standards remains limited. Without regulatory adaptation, the sector faces potential supply chain disruptions, reduced competitiveness, and erosion of consumer trust, while inadequate oversight could increase the risk of unauthorised GMO use and overly restrictive policies could stifle innovation needed to meet climate and nutritional challenges.

The Panel emphasised that rejecting GMO technologies outright could discourage investment and innovation, limiting the ability of agriculture to respond to climate related challenges and nutritional demands. Instead, science-based regulation and detection methods are needed to manage risks while enabling progress, with greater emphasis placed on early controls in the development process and assessment of characteristics and performance of the final product.

In summary, the growing presence of GMOs in livestock feed supply chains highlights the need for proactive, science-based regulation. Recognising the limitations of detection for certain approaches, regulatory frameworks may need to focus on upstream oversight and product-based assessment alongside development of detection tools where possible. Developing aligned standards will be essential to manage risks while supporting innovation. Without these measures, the agricultural sector may struggle to meet future demands for resilience and sustainability.

3.3 Deletion of Footnote in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 establishes maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticide residues in food and feed. Annex I, part A, includes a category dedicated to products used exclusively for animal feed production; however, this category currently remains empty. Instead, the regulation relies on Footnote 1, which exempts feed-only products from MRLs until specific limits are set. The potential removal or redrafting of Footnote 1 has been under discussion within the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) since 2023, with significant implications for feed materials and trade.

The debate surrounding Footnote 1 reflects divergent views among Member States and stakeholders. The European Commission has expressed a preference for deleting the footnote to create legal certainty, while acknowledging resource constraints that prevent establishing specific MRLs for feed products in the near term. Several Member States have proposed maintaining the status quo or redrafting Footnote 1 to clarify its interpretation and reduce inconsistencies.

Throughout 2023 and 2024, working groups were formed to develop technical guidance on interpreting Footnote 1, but progress has been slow due to differing national approaches. In late 2024, the Commission introduced the idea of an EFSA led pilot project to assess the feasibility of setting MRLs for selected feed products using existing dietary burden data. By mid-2025, discussions continued, with the Commission preparing a paper outlining next steps and inviting Member States to provide input.
Industry associations have actively engaged in consultations, emphasising the need for clarity and standardisation. The Commission proposed to maintain the current text of the footnote 1 and focus efforts on preparing a mandate for EFSA to assess the feasibility of setting MRLs for feed in a pilot project which was agreed by the Committee. Redrafting could standardise MRLs across the EU, though this would not automatically apply in Great Britain, which retains Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 under domestic law.

Footnote 1 currently provides an exemption for feed-only products, but its ambiguous wording has led to divergent interpretations among Member States. The removal or revision of this footnote would have significant implications for trade, compliance, and enforcement. Standardisation within the EU could improve legal certainty, but differences between EU and GB regulations may create new trade barriers unless GB adopts similar standards.

The main challenge lies in balancing legal clarity with practical feasibility. Establishing specific MRLs for feed products requires substantial resources, which the Commission and EFSA currently lack. Redrafting Footnote 1 may resolve interpretative issues but will require technical input from industry and Member States. Divergence between EU and GB regulations adds complexity, particularly for import controls and SPS alignment.

If Footnote 1 is deleted without alternative measures, feed-only products would be subject to default MRLs (dependent on analytical method availability), potentially disrupting trade and supply chains. Inconsistent interpretations could lead to enforcement gaps or disputes. Regulatory uncertainty may also undermine confidence among stakeholders and delay compliance efforts. For GB, failure to align with EU changes could result in trade barriers and increased administrative burdens.

The future of Footnote 1 in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 remains a critical issue for feed regulation and feed security. While most Member States favour maintaining the status quo or redrafting the footnote, the Commission appears inclined toward revision. Any changes will require careful coordination among Member States, industry stakeholders, and regulatory authorities. For GB, proactive engagement will be essential to prevent trade disruptions and ensure regulatory coherence.

3.4 Contaminants in Feed

Contaminants in animal feed represent a growing concern for food safety, animal health, and environmental sustainability. Recent evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have highlighted emerging chemical risks, including mycotoxins, microplastics, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These contaminants may arise from changes in agricultural practices, climate change, and the growing use of circular feed sources such as food waste and by-products. Addressing these risks is critical to maintaining feed integrity and consumer confidence.

EFSA’s foresight initiatives and workshops have identified multiple emerging risks associated with contaminants in feed. Mycotoxins, including deoxynivalenol (DON) and zearalenone (ZON), are considered as high-priority hazards due to their potential co-occurrence and synergistic effects, which may be exacerbated by climate change. Members highlighted that mycotoxin co-occurrence and climate driven variability increase the likelihood of exposure to hazardous compounds and questioned whether routine testing should be expanded to include additional mycotoxins. Shellfish and algal toxins were also noted as concerns where microalgae or fish-derived products are incorporated into feed.

PFAS contamination represents another significant challenge. Although maximum PFAS levels are monitored in EU animal products, feed materials are not routinely assessed, creating the potential for accumulation through the food chain, posing a risk for consumers. Similarly, microplastics originating from food waste used in feed can concentrate in animals and ultimately reach consumers. EFSA’s focus on circular feed sources highlights the urgency of addressing these risks within the context of sustainability and the circular economy. The shift towards a circular bioeconomy introduces new exposure pathways that current regulatory systems are not fully equipped to manage, with contaminants such as PFAS and microplastics insufficiently covered under existing frameworks and mycotoxin risks are likely to increase due to climate driven changes in fungal ecology.

The need for updated guidance and additional parameters for monitoring was emphasised, alongside concerns about emerging risks in less regulated regions. Members noted that failure to address emerging contaminants could compromise animal health, food safety, and environmental integrity.

In summary, contaminants in feed represent a multifaceted challenge that intersects with sustainability, food safety, and environmental protection. EFSA’s foresight activities highlight the urgency of updating regulatory frameworks to address emerging risks from circular feed sources and novel contaminants. Enhanced monitoring, aligned standards, and targeted research will be essential to safeguard feed integrity and protect public health in the evolving agricultural landscape.

3.5 Shortage of CROs for Animal Efficacy Trials

The availability of Contract Research Organisations (CROs) capable of conducting animal efficacy trials is critical for the regulatory approval of feed additives. Recent developments indicate a shortage of CROs, driven by increasingly stringent regulatory requirements and evolving guidance from EFSA, which may delay innovation and market access.

Members noted that updated EFSA guidance implemented in December 2024 introduced higher standards for in vivo studies, including stricter animal welfare requirements, more complex study designs and specific ethical certification. These requirements have increased the complexity and cost of trials, reducing the ability for some CROs to remain competitive. The need for unconventional trial conditions, such as those required for methane reduction studies, has further highlighted the lack of flexibility in current regulatory frameworks.

The shortage is compounded by declining research capacity within universities and limited alternative facilities. This trend hinders applicants’ ability to meet regulatory data requirements and may discourage investment in novel feed additives. The shortage also exacerbates existing challenges in scheduling trials, which often require booking months in advance. Feed additive applications can be stalled when additional trial data is requested by ACAF, creating bottlenecks in the approval process. Members emphasised that regulatory systems must balance rigor with practicality to ensure trials remain feasible for innovative product streams to maintain progress in feed innovation.

Prolonged shortages of CROs could lead to significant delays in product approvals, stalling innovation and reducing competitiveness in the feed sector. Inflexible regulatory frameworks risk creating conditions where trials cannot be conducted, undermining confidence in the approval process. There is also a risk that applicants may seek less regulated authorities, resulting in uneven standards and potential safety concerns.

In summary, the shortage of CROs capable of performing animal efficacy trials represents a critical bottleneck in the regulatory system for feed additives. Addressing this issue will require a combination of regulatory flexibility, investment in research infrastructure, and collaboration between industry and academic institutions. Without these measures, the sector risks delays, increased costs, and reduced innovation.

4. Theme 3: Impact of Climate Change

4.1 Resistance to fungicides

Climate change is significantly influencing fungal ecology, increasing resistance to azole fungicides and boosting mycotoxin contamination in feed and bedding materials. Rising temperatures and humidity create conditions that favour the growth and spread of toxigenic fungi, posing risks to animal and human health. This issue represents a One Health challenge, as environmental resistance to agricultural fungicides can lead to cross-resistance to medical azoles used to treat infections in humans and animals.

Members highlighted that agricultural use of azole fungicides contributes to the selection of azole-resistant Aspergillus species, potentially compromising the effectiveness of medical treatments for fungal infections such as aspergillosis. EFSA and other EU agencies have emphasised the need for coordinated action across agriculture, medicine, and biocide approval processes to limit the spread of resistance.

Climate change also accelerates microbial adaptation. Higher temperatures promote thermotolerant fungi capable of thriving at 37°C, increasing pathogenic potential. Novel fungal species may emerge, producing multiple mycotoxins and creating complex contamination scenarios in crops, feed and bedding materials.

Members noted that microorganisms evolve at rates far exceeding those of plants and animals, enabling rapid adaptation to environmental stressors. This evolutionary capacity may increase fungal diversity and resistance to existing control measures, highlighting the need for proactive monitoring and mitigation strategies.

The primary challenge lies in implementing effective agricultural practices to reduce selection pressure for fungicide resistance while maintaining crop protection. Regulatory frameworks must adapt to address cross-sectoral risks, and resources for monitoring fungal resistance and thermotolerance need to be expanded. Knowledge gaps regarding microbial adaptation and toxin co-occurrence further complicate risk assessment. If unmanaged, fungal resistance could undermine the efficacy of medical treatments, leading to serious public health implications. Increased mycotoxin contamination threatens livestock productivity and food safety, while climate-driven microbial adaptation may introduce novel pathogens and toxins, escalating risks across the food chain.

In summary, the impact of climate change on azole resistance and mycotoxin contamination represents a critical One Health issue. Coordinated action across agriculture, medicine, and environmental management – supported by enhanced monitoring, regulatory adaptation and research into microbial evolution- will be essential to mitigate these risks.

4.2 Mycotoxin Contamination

Mycotoxin contamination in feed and bedding materials is an escalating concern, driven by climate change and evolving agricultural practices. Rising temperatures and humidity favour fungal growth and toxin production, posing significant risks to animal health, food safety, and occupational exposure. Addressing these challenges requires integrated strategies encompassing crop management, monitoring, and regulatory adaptation.

Members emphasised that climate change is increasing the prevalence and diversity of mycotoxins, with aflatoxins appearing in regions where they were previously rare. Contamination of feed and bedding materials, including straw and silage, has been documented, with recent findings of penicillic acid levels up to 10 mg/kg in UK silage. These trends highlight the need for proactive measures to mitigate contamination risks. Potential interventions include breeding crops resistant to fungal infection, adopting good agricultural practices (GAPs) such as adjusting harvest periods, and deploying biological control products that use atoxigenic strains to compete with aflatoxigenic fungi. Increased monitoring and the development of novel diagnostic tools are essential to detect contamination early and prevent its spread.

Occupational exposure was highlighted by the Panel as a critical issue, particularly for workers in animal stock facilities and feed production environments. Studies from Portugal and Ireland have revealed high exposure levels, reinforcing the need for biomonitoring programs within occupational health frameworks. Consumer awareness campaigns were also suggested as a preventive measure to reduce risks along the food chain.

Members noted that a broader spectrum of mycotoxins should be considered as traditionally only aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and ochratoxin A (OTA) are tested for. Climate driven changes in fungal ecology are increasing the complexity of contamination profiles, with multiple toxins co-occurring in feed and bedding materials. These developments demand a One Health approach that integrates animals, humans, and environmental health considerations.

The primary challenge lies in implementing effective monitoring and prevention strategies across diverse agricultural systems. Resource constraints, variability in contamination patterns, and gaps in diagnostic capabilities hinder timely detection and intervention. Failure to manage mycotoxin contamination could lead to significant health impacts for livestock and humans, including occupational exposure risks. Contaminated feed can compromise animal productivity and food safety, while climate-driven shifts in fungal species may introduce novel toxins with uncertain health effects. Economic losses from rejected milk and feed products further exacerbate these risks.

In summary, rising mycotoxin contamination represents a significant threat to feed safety and public health in the context of climate change. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted strategy involving crop breeding, improved agricultural practices, enhanced monitoring, and targeted research including consideration of alternatives to increased fungicide use where resistance risks may emerge. Collaborative efforts across sectors will be essential to mitigate risks and ensure resilience in feed supply chains.

4.3 Anticipated Changes in Farming Practices

The agricultural sector is undergoing significant changes as it moves toward more sustainable farming practices aimed at improving soil health, structure, and water retention. Techniques such as conservation tillage, which minimises soil disturbance, are increasingly being adopted to support these goals, however, these practices can have unintended consequences.

Members noted that conservation tillage reduces the burial of ergot sclerotia and spores, allowing them to survive on the soil surface and reinfect crops in subsequent seasons. Historically, tillage of at least 5 cm helped to mitigate this risk by burying sclerotia, but reduced tillage practices have led to increased ergot presence. Industry monitoring data show that ergot alkaloid levels in the 2024 harvest were the highest recorded in nine years, with levels exceeding 1 mg/kg in feed cereals. These trends indicate that while sustainable farming practices improve soil health and biodiversity, they can inadvertently increase ergot contamination. Additional factors contributing to ergot contamination include the use of field strips and margins as wildlife corridors, which can harbour grass species that act as hosts for ergot fungi. These ecological practices, while beneficial for biodiversity, inadvertently create reservoirs for infection and could lead to significant health risks for livestock and humans, as ergot alkaloids are highly toxic. Economic losses from contaminated feed and reduced crop quality may also occur.

Members discussed broader implications of climate change and monoculture farming systems. Current crop strains optimised for existing conditions may not withstand future climatic shifts, necessitating exploration of alternative protein sources and genetically modified species engineered for resilience. Members stated that the primary challenge lies in balancing sustainability goals with food and feed safety. Regulatory frameworks must also address the need for flexibility in adopting new crop technologies to maintain resilience under changing climatic conditions. Inadequate preparedness for climate change could exacerbate these risks, while restrictive legislation may hinder the adoption of innovative solutions.

Anticipated changes in farming practices reflect a necessary shift toward sustainability but introduce new challenges for feed safety and crop resilience. Addressing these issues will require integrated approaches combining improved agricultural practices, enhanced monitoring, and regulatory flexibility to support innovation. Proactive measures will be essential to safeguard animal health, food security, and environmental sustainability.

5. Theme 4: Alternative protein feed ingredients

5.1 Alternative Protein Feed Ingredients

Alternative protein feed ingredients are gaining attention as the agricultural sector seeks sustainable solutions to meet growing demand for animal nutrition. A 2023 Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) conducted by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) explored four main categories: genetically modified (GM) or engineered protein crops, protein from cellular agriculture, protein derived from former foods and industry by-products, and protein from animal by-products and insects.

Members acknowledged the potential of alternative proteins but highlighted several challenges. Protein from cellular agriculture is expected to become increasingly viable, with fermentation processes offering opportunities to repurpose spent organisms as livestock feed. Members also noted that GMO single cell protein (algae or bacterial), could be engineered to overproduce specific amino acids, potentially reducing reliance on separately manufactured feed additives. However, concerns were raised about whether these organisms could introduce toxic residues from prior industrial processes into feedstocks.

Insect protein is already being produced commercially, but questions remain about environmental benefits, economic viability, biosecurity, and antibiotic resistance. Production challenges include high energy inputs – particularly for species requiring temperatures above UK norms - and variability in substrate quality when using waste streams. Strict control of waste-derived substrates is essential to prevent contamination with animal by-products or pathogens.

Microalgae and algal cell production were identified as promising protein sources, particularly as by-products of high-value product manufacturing. However, energy requirements and feedstock sourcing will be variable dependent on the species and system used. Similarly, alternative crops such as legumes offer potential but may contain anti-nutritive compounds, as identified by EFSA. Processing technologies to extract and concentrate protein from plants and vegetables were noted, though cost and energy intensity may restrict their use for feed applications.

Members cautioned against oversimplifying renewable energy integration and highlighted the need to avoid resource competition between sectors. The use of former food products and food waste introduces microbiological risks that require strict safety protocols. Overall, while alternative proteins present opportunities for resilience and sustainability, their adoption must be guided by rigorous risk assessment and regulatory oversight.

Alternative protein sources encompass diverse technologies and raw materials, each with unique benefits and challenges. Cellular agriculture and fermentation-based proteins could significantly expand available feed resources, but regulatory systems must address safety concerns related to GM organisms and industrial residues. Insect and algal proteins offer environmental advantages but face practical and economic constraints. The complexity of these systems highlights the need for holistic evaluation of sustainability claims and risk profiles.

The primary challenges include ensuring regulatory adaptability, maintaining feed safety, and achieving economic viability. Variability in substrate quality for insect production, energy-intensive processes for algae and plant protein extraction, and potential microbiological hazards from food waste all complicate implementations. Alignment of standards and development of clear guidance will be essential to support innovation while safeguarding animal and public health.

In summary, alternative protein feed ingredients represent a promising frontier in sustainable agriculture, offering pathways to reduce reliance on conventional crops and enhance resilience. However, their successful integration requires robust regulatory frameworks, comprehensive risk assessments, and transparent sustainability evaluations. Collaboration between industry, regulators, and researchers will be key to unlocking the potential of these innovations while mitigating associated risks.

6. Additional Discussion Points

6.1 Heavy Metals and Minerals in Animal Feed

Heavy metals, including essential trace elements such as zinc and copper, play a critical role in animal nutrition but also pose potential environmental and health risks. While supplementation is necessary for livestock diets, uncertainties remain regarding absorption, excretion, and long-term accumulation in soil and water systems.

Members noted that metals present in the environment exert selective pressure on microorganisms, potentially driving antimicrobial resistance development. They also highlighted that the feed products are marketed for terrestrial and aquatic animals, yet environmental behaviour differs significantly between these systems that complicate risk assessment.

The Committee discussed zinc supplementation, referencing previous findings that micro zinc at lower concentrations can achieve similar effects as higher doses, raising questions about dosing standards. Studies indicate that supplemented metals accumulate in soil at varying depths depending on solubility, highlighting the need for monitoring environmental persistence.

Evidence on the broader environmental consequences of heavy-metal supplementation remains limited, making it challenging for regulators and applicants to evaluate cumulative risks or determine how supplementation practices influence soil nutrient profiles and resistance development in microorganisms. The Panel identified significant knowledge gaps regarding absorption, excretion, and environmental fate, noting that regulatory decisions are complicated in the absence of robust scientific evidence. Without evidence-based standards, there is a possibility of restricting products pre-emptively, which could limit access to essential nutrients and discourage innovation.

Overall, heavy metals in animal feed present a complex interplay of nutritional necessity and environmental risk. Addressing evidence gaps through long-term monitoring and research will be essential to inform regulatory decisions and ensure sustainable practices. Collaboration with agencies such as DEFRA and international partners will be critical to developing a comprehensive understanding of heavy metal dynamics in agricultural systems.

6.2 Research

The Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) identified four strategic directions for policy and research: decoupling protein production from fossil fuels, developing sustainable economic strategies for alternative proteins at subnational levels, supporting circular livestock feed solutions, and enhancing feed and food regulatory systems. Members emphasised the need for further research into co-exposure to multiple mycotoxins, including the development of mixture risk maps tailored to specific feed types, regions, and animal species. Bedding materials should also be included in exposure assessments and routinely monitored for mycotoxin contamination. Additionally, members highlighted the importance of understanding synergistic effects of low-level mycotoxin mixtures, as current guidance levels may not adequately reflect combined risks. Research should also address the impact of organic environmental contaminants such as dioxins, brominated flame retardants, PFAS, and microplastics on feed safety and animal health. Members noted that emerging GMO technologies may have the potential to address some of these challenges, but further research is needed to support a balanced, evidence-based assessment on their merits and limitation in different areas of agriculture.