The additive is corrosive to eyes, skin and the respiratory mucosae.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/epoxomicin-bu-4061t.html  Concerning safety for the environment a Phase II was required; taking into consideration the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any risk to the terrestrial and aquatic compartments and that bioaccumulation potential for carvacrol is low and risk for secondary poisoning for worm/fish eating birds and mammals is not likely to occur. Only one study positively supporting efficacy of the additive was available; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of Nimicoat®.Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of propyl gallate as feed additive for all animal species. Propyl gallate is neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic. Propyl gallate a is safe for veal calves, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, sheep, goats, sows, horses and salmonids at the proposed maximum use level of 40 mg/kg and for ornamental fish at the proposed maximum use level of 100 mg/kg. The following concentrations (mg/kg complete feed) are considered safe for the other target species 15 for chickens for fattening; 20 for turkeys for fattening, laying hens and rabbits; 27 for piglets and pigs for fattening and 71 for dogs. The Panel cannot conclude on a safe level for cats. The exposure of the consumer to propyl gallate and its metabolites cannot be estimated owing to the absence of reliable data on residues of propyl gallate and its metabolites in edible tissues and products. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the consumer of propyl gallate, when used as a feed additive for all food-producing animal species. Propyl gallate is irritant to skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is possible and it is considered a hazard. The use of the additive in animal nutrition does not pose a risk for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that propyl gallate has the potential to act as an antioxidant in feedingstuffs. The Panel did not see a reason for the use of propyl gallate as an antioxidant in water for drinking.Panavital feed is a preparation of d-glyceric acid intended to be used as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening. The active substance (d-glyceric acid) of the additive ■■■■■ by fermentation with Gluconobacter frateurii. The additive is intended to be used in chickens for fattening at a concentration from ■■■■■. The FEEDAP Panel notes that the data provided for the characterisation of the active substance are incomplete and that data on the characterisation of the formulated additive are not provided. Based on the information available, the FEEDAP Panel cannot assess the qualitative and quantitative composition of Panavital feed. Due to lack of data, the safety of the production strain claimed to be used to produce the active substance cannot be evaluated. Based on the data provided by the applicant, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of Panavital feed for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment and on the efficacy of Panavital feed when used as feed additive.The feed additive 'dry grape extract 60-20' is a mixture of two extracts, one from the seed and the other from the skin of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera. It is intended to be used as a sensory additive (functional group flavouring compound) in dogs. The additive 'dry grape extract 60-20' is specified to contain ■■■■■ The applicant proposes a maximum use level of 100 mg 'dry grape extract 60-20'/kg of complete feedingstuffs for dogs without a withdrawal period. The FEEDAP Panel was aware of case reports indicating acute toxicity for some dogs consuming grapes or raisins at exposure levels relevant to the use of 'dry grape extract 60-20'. The FEEDAP Panel considered that rare idiosyncratic effects could be possibly responsible for the reported cases of fatality in dogs due to acute renal failure following exposure to different types of grapes. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the additive is poorly characterised. Based on the data available, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of 'dry grape extract 60-20' when used as a feed additive for dogs. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the user when handling the additives. Since grape seed extract is used in food as flavouring, and its function in feed is essentially the same as that in food no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.The additive lignosulphonate of magnesium is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group binders) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the absence and/or incompleteness of information needed in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the format requirements of the application and the structure of the dossier. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the requests from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive lignosulphonate of magnesium as a technological additive for all animal species.The additive Shellac is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group stabiliser) for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) assessed the data provided by the applicant in the technical dossier. During the course of the assessment, the need for additional information in order to be able to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of this additive was identified and notified to the applicant. The information requested covered the description of the additive/efficacy, and safety of the additive. The applicant has failed to provide the additional information. Therefore, considering the data provided in the original dossier and the absence of response from the applicant to the request from EFSA, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to deliver an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive Shellac as a technological additive for all animal species.