EFSA FEEDAP — copper(II)-betaine complex for all animal species
Source: EFSA FEEDAP scientific opinion, EFSA Journal 2023;21(2):e07817 (DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7817), retrieved 2026-08-06 via Europe PMC OA full-text XML. Paraphrase of an EFSA opinion that the source XML tags CC-BY-ND; per project COPYRIGHT_POLICY only facts/numbers/proper-nouns are quoted verbatim, sentences rewritten.
Editorial context (read this before using the data point)
This is the EFSA FEEDAP jurisdiction on the nutrient/additive copper(II)-betaine complex (trace element, copper source) — one of five nutrient-safety opinions in this final batch (Task L). Read with the efsa nutrient endpoints and AAFCO/FEDIAF provisions for the same nutrient.
Key findings (paraphrase; numbers and proper nouns verbatim from source)
- A tolerance study shows the additive is safe for chickens for fattening; this extrapolates to all animal species provided the EU maximum authorised total-copper levels in feed are not exceeded.
- Consumer safety: no concern provided max authorised total copper levels are respected.
- User safety — key caveat: owing to the presence of nickel, the additive is a skin and respiratory sensitiser and an eye irritant (but non-irritant to skin).
- Environment: safe for terrestrial species and land-based aquaculture; no conclusion for marine sediment safety in sea cages.
- Efficacy cannot be demonstrated from the available data.
Pet-food relevance
A copper source for pet (and livestock/aquaculture) diets. The binding constraint is the EU maximum total-copper level; the nickel-driven sensitiser/eye-irritant warning is the practical handling note. Directly cross-references the efsa trace-element/copper endpoints.
Scope note / honest gap
Paraphrase of an EFSA opinion; source XML licence tag was CC-BY-ND, so this topic quotes only data points verbatim and rewrites prose. Specific EU max copper ppm values are not quoted (they sit in the authorisation, not the conclusion text); consult the EU register for exact numbers.