{"topic_id":"EFSA_FEEDAP_pet_food_additives_dossiers","category":"efsa","context":"---\ntopic_id: EFSA_FEEDAP_pet_food_additives_dossiers\ncategory: efsa\ntitle: EFSA FEEDAP pet-specific feed additive dossiers (5 explicit \"for pets\" opinions, 2011-2022)\nlang: en\nsource: OFT3.0_export_repository.xlsx\ndate_parsed: 2026-07-20\ntokens_estimated: 520\n---\n\nPet-specific feed additive dossiers from the EFSA Panel on Additives and\nProducts or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), identified by\nstrict title-string match for \"for pets\" / \"for pet \" / \"pet food\" /\n\"petfood\" / \"companion animal\" / \"companion-animal\" in\n`LiteratureReference.EFSAOutputTitle` of the DOSSIER sheet in OpenFoodTox\n3.0 (Zenodo record 19388272, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19388272).\n\n| # | Date | Title | FoodDomain | DOI |\n|---|------|-------|------------|-----|\n| 1 | 2011-10-13 | Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium bisulphate (SBS) for all animal species as preservative and silage additive | technological additives | doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2415 |\n| 2 | 2013-10-10 | Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of L-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate as a flavouring additive for pets | sensory additives | doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3437 |\n| 3 | 2017-07-05 | Safety and efficacy of sodium and potassium alginate for pets, other non-food-producing animals and fish | technological additives | doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4945 |\n| 4 | 2022-03-23 | Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of carrageenan for pets and other non-food-producing animals (Marinalg International) | technological additives | doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7285 |\n| 5 | 2022-03-23 | Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of agar for pets and non-food-producing animals (Hispanagar) | technological additives | doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7284 |\n\nAll five dossiers are issued under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003\n(amended) — the EU regulatory framework for feed additives, which\nseparates additives into technological (functional category covers\npreservatives / emulsifiers / gelling agents), sensory (flavouring\ncompounds), nutritional (vitamins / minerals / amino acids),\nzootechnical (digestibility enhancers / gut flora stabilizers), and\ncoccidiostats / histomonostats categories.\n\n## Distribution by FoodDomain\n\n- **technological additives: 4** (sodium bisulphate 2011 / alginate\n  2017 / carrageenan 2022 / agar 2022) — note that sodium bisulphate\n  2011 has broader \"for all animal species\" framing in the body but\n  is retrieved by the strict pet-keyword filter due to the title's\n  reference to pet species alongside livestock. The other 3 (alginate,\n  carrageenan, agar) are explicitly \"for pets, other non-food-producing\n  animals and fish\".\n- **sensory additives: 1** (L-cysteine 2013) — the only dedicated\n  flavouring substance evaluated explicitly for pets.\n- **nutritional additives: 0** — pet nutritional additive dossiers\n  are typically issued with \"for all animal species\" framing because\n  vitamin / mineral / amino acid RDAs are largely species-agnostic\n  in EFSA's framework.\n\n## Distribution by year\n\n| Year | Count |\n|------|------:|\n| 2011 | 1 (sodium bisulphate, broad species) |\n| 2013 | 1 (L-cysteine, explicit pet) |\n| 2017 | 1 (alginate, explicit pet) |\n| 2022 | 2 (carrageenan + agar, explicit pet) |\n\nThe cluster of 2 dossiers in 2022-03-23 (carrageenan and agar) both\ncome from hydrocolloid manufacturers (Marinalg International and\nHispanagar respectively) and target the same functional category —\ngelling / thickening agents used in wet pet food and treats.\n\n## Why so few?\n\nEFSA FEEDAP has issued 1333 dossiers in the OpenFoodTox 3.0 dataset\nspanning 2003-2024. Pet-specific dossiers (5 strict / 14 with broader\nkeyword) represent **0.4%** of FEEDAP output. Three structural reasons:\n\n1. **FEEDAP is livestock-centric** — the Panel's primary mandate is\n   feed for food-producing animals (cattle, pigs, poultry, fish). Pet\n   food intersects with FEEDAP only when an additive is specifically\n   applied to or evaluated for pet species.\n2. **\"For all animal species\" framing** — most pet-relevant dossiers\n   use generic \"all animal species\" wording in the title because\n   safety thresholds for common additives (vitamins, minerals,\n   preservatives) are species-agnostic under EU feed additive law.\n3. **Pet food specific regulation** — companion animal nutrition in\n   the EU is largely covered by Reg 999/2008 / Reg 1831/2003 and\n   PARNUTS (Reg 2020/354), not by dedicated pet-food additive dossiers.\n   The 5 dossiers above are exceptions where applicants sought\n   explicit pet-food labelling or where the substance had species-\n   specific safety concerns.\n\nSource: `toxicology/efsa/OFT3.0_export_repository.xlsx`, sheet\n`DOSSIER` (11613 rows). Filter: `Domain.ExpertGroup LIKE '%FEEDAP%'`\nAND title regex `for pets|for pet |pet food|petfood|companion animal`.\nTotal strict matches: 5 (Doi-unique). Broad matches (including\n\"pesticide residue in pet food\" and \"recycling processes touching\npet food packaging\"): 14 unique Doi.","sources":[],"tokens_estimated":520,"generated_at":null,"tip":"Use /api/v1/topics to discover more topics. /api/v1/nutrient for precise single-point queries. /api/v1/cross_compare for 2-3 standard comparisons."}