Feedback reference
F8298
Submitted by
Henry VAN SADELHOFF
User type
Company/business organisation
Organisation
ADM
Organisation size
Large (250 or more)
Country of origin
Netherlands

1) There is no equivalent replacement to formaldehyde with the same level of efficacy. In the EC proposal, the reasoning for the denial is that there is another approved feed hygiene enhancer (formic acid) and therefore formaldehyde can be substituted. This line of reasoning seems quite unfounded especially given the differences in the efficacy of the two substances with regard to Salmonella kill rate and the fact that formic acid doesn’t protect feed after treatment from re-contamination.
2) EFSA has not raised a feed safety concern in terms of the treated product; usage safety concerns should be dealt with under the appropriate legislation (HSE at work/REACH).
3) If the Commission is to withdraw the option to use formaldehyde then the authorities should be prepared to discuss how to proportionately manage the potential for a higher incidence of Salmonella positives in feed (given the existing restrictive enforcement policies of many EU Member States)

The views and opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in them. Neither the Commission, nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf, may be held responsible for the content or the information posted here. Views and opinions that violate the Commission’s feedback rules will be removed from the site.