Minutes of the 103rd meeting held on Tuesday 10th February 2026

These minutes are subject to confirmation by the Committee. 

Members are required to declare any personal interest in matters under discussion. Where Members have a particularly close association with any item, the Chairman will limit their involvement in the discussion. In cases where an item is to be discussed in their absence, a Member may make a statement before leaving. 

This meeting was held online.

Attendance

ACAF Committee members	FSA members
Nick Wheelhouse (Chair) Barry Bradford Martin Briggs Emily Burton Katrina Campbell Nick Jonsson Hannah Kane Chris McAlinden Donald Morrison Derek Renshaw Mike Salter Adam Smith Carla Viegas Christel Wake Helen Warren	Nathan Allen Lorcan Browne Emily Davies David Evans Emily Hudson Kaila Lee Francisco Matilla Barry Maycock James Metcalfe Shila Sultana Abigail Timothy Johann Trotter Alba Ureña Rusillo Josephine Walker Elisabeth Watson

1. Apologies 

Apologies were received from Mike Salter.

 

2. Welcome

The Chair welcomed members of the Committee, Secretariat and observers from the Devolved Administrations.

 

3. Risk Assessment update

The Regulated Products Team Leader Francisco Matilla-Garcia reminded the Committee about the confirmed change of ACAF from an advisory non-departmental public body to a departmental expert committee. Members were also informed of the upcoming ACAF website migration into the National Archive. Brief updates were given regarding the SPS negotiations and recent calls for data relating to 3-NOP.

 

4. Policy update

Animal Feed Policy Adviser, Beth Hall gave an update on 3-NOP. Members were also informed that the risk assessment for Patent Blue V would be progressing, with the intention of withdrawing it from the market due to the Committee not having access to all relevant data. An update on the number of new applications received since the last meeting was also provided.

 

5. Minutes from 102nd Meeting

The Committee reviewed the minutes from the 102^nd ACAF meeting and provided feedback to be reviewed by the Secretariat.

 

6. Coccidiostat & AMR position paper

In a previous meeting, the ACAF discussed the use of coccidiostats as prophylactic feed additives in the UK and their potential relationship to antimicrobial resistance. A paper was prepared by the Secretariat to capture the position of the Committee and shared with Members for comment. The Committee were invited to discuss the first draft and make recommendations for the revised version.

 

7. RP2252 Vitamin B12: Discussion on acceptable overage levels

Members discussed the use of overage levels in feed, highlighting that the key objective is to ensure that the guaranteed level is consistently delivered from the point of manufacture through to the end of the product’s shelf life. This requires balancing the need to maintain safety at higher inclusion levels while also avoiding the risk of underdosing over time. The applicant had provided three stability studies, one in poultry and two in swine. It was noted that the same batch was used for all trials, however the levels at the beginning of the poultry study were different to that of the swine study. The applicant would be asked to provide an explanation for why the value is significantly higher in the swine study. Additionally, the applicant would be asked to provide the method of analysis used to determine Vitamin B12 levels in the feed.

The Committee again raised concerns over the applicant being unable to determine if this organism was genetically modified.

 

8. Phage risk assessment discussion

The Secretariat introduced the discussion topic to give context to their request, stating that the FSA would like to understand whether the current feed additives guidelines would be sufficient for risk assessment of bacteriophage for use in feed trials. In the absence of UK guidance documents or assessment templates specifically for bacteriophages the FSA would like to know whether members consider there to be any safety concerns from the use of bacteriophage which would not be addressed in the current feed additives guidance. It was clarified that all previous requests for bacteriophage use in feed trials had ultimately been determined veterinary medicines and applicants had been referred to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). However, the publication of EFSA’s opinion on a bacteriophage product (Bafasal) had set a precedent use of bacteriophage as a feed additive.

Members discussed the key areas of concern regarding the safety of bacteriophage including horizontal gene transfer, endotoxin release, disruption of gut microbiome and the development of bacterial resistance. The Committee highlighted that resistance could develop rapidly, possibly faster than with antibiotic usage, and therefore it would be likely that cocktails of phage would be required for efficacy. It was emphasised that bacteriophages are typically host specific, with host range limited to one or a few species of the same genus or, one or a few strains of the same species.

It was highlighted that the most recent EFSA guidance for characterisation of microorganisms indicates that the active agent includes bacteriophages. All of Section 2.1 would apply to bacteriophages and would be appropriate for use in a feed trial risk assessment for example, data from whole genome sequencing (WGS) would enable lysogenic bacteriophage to be distinguished from lytic phage.  However, there was consensus among Members that long-term risks, particularly horizontal transfer of anti-microbial resistance (AMR) genes and development of resistance to phage's, could not be sufficiently evaluated using current guidance.

The Committee pointed out that bacteriophages may be similar to probiotics in terms of functionality, also acting on bacteria within a target species, raising the question on the distinction between what constitutes a feed additive versus a veterinary medicine. The Secretariat clarified that if the bacteriophage activity were on disease causing bacteria within the target species, then the product would be considered a veterinary medicine. An application had been received by the FSA for a feed trial using a bacteriophage in which the Applicant had indicated that their product was a feed additive as the bacteriophage was only active in the feed and had no activity within the target species. The Committee emphasised that if the applicant claims no activity in the gut, they must demonstrate either absence of phage activity within the animal or the inability to isolate viable phage from the gut. Although it was caveated that Members were unsure what would constitute suitable evidence.

Members questioned whether the standard battery of genotoxicity and toxicity studies (90‑day, Ames, Micronucleus) is sufficient for evaluating bacteriophage products as these tests are recommended in the guidelines for assessing consumer safety. It was decided that this discussion would continue outside of the meeting due to time constraints.

Members acknowledged that, from a purely guidance-based perspective, documents may be broadly workable; however, risk management decisions are likely to be more complex.

 

9. Horizon scanning review

Members reviewed the consolidated document for publication.

 

10. Draft safety assessments: RP2074 and RP2187

Members were presented with draft Safety Assessments for applications RP2074 and RP2187.

 

11. Any other business

The Committee were informed of the updated VMD guidance on advertising non-medicinal products.

Next ACAF meeting: 2^nd April on Microsoft Teams.