New EFSA Formic Acid Review Puts Treatment Records in Focus

Read the new assessment within its scope

On 6 October, EFSA published its renewal assessment of formic acid and sodium formate. Adopted on 9 September, it concludes that use remains safe for target animals, consumers and the environment under authorised conditions. It does not reassess efficacy because the renewal seeks no relevant change in use conditions. EFSA scientific opinion

For ingredient buyers, the commercial lesson is to distinguish an additive assessment from evidence about a consignment. A quotation describing material as acid treated leaves practical questions unanswered: which product was applied, for what purpose, to which lot and under whose responsibility? Our recommended buying control is to resolve those questions before treating the description as a reason to accept the goods.

Confirm the product and the permitted use

The European Commission distinguishes scientific evaluation from authorisation and maintains a feed-additive register linking to the relevant authorising regulations. A new opinion is therefore not itself a new permission to use any acid product in any ingredient. Commission feed-additive overview

Ask the supplier to identify the commercial preparation, active substances, physical form and stated function. Have the responsible compliance specialist check the applicable authorisation and conditions for the proposed use and destination. Record the basis for that decision. Avoid copying a limit from one product or function into the approval of another, and do not let a trade name substitute for the composition.

If a supplier changes the preparation, request a fresh technical review rather than accepting a claim that both products contain the same acid. Agree who will assess the revised specification and whether the customer must approve the change. This is a proposed purchasing safeguard, not a claim that every substitution is prohibited.

Resolve compliance details rather than generalise them

EFSA could not confirm compliance with the acetaldehyde specification for the solid sodium-formate evidence reviewed. That specific qualification belongs beside the broader safety conclusion. Opinion conclusions

Our practical interpretation is neither to dismiss the qualification nor turn it into an allegation about every commercial batch. For a relevant offer, ask what current specification and analytical evidence support the supplied preparation. Identify the test method, reporting limit and batch reference, then have a qualified reviewer decide whether the evidence resolves the question. A general brochure should not close a lot-specific query.

The same discipline applies when the ingredient trader buys already treated material rather than the additive itself. Ask the treatment operator to retain the supporting preparation records and make the agreed information available. If the answer is pending, mark the treatment review as pending rather than merging it into an unexplained compliant status.

Connect the treatment to the ingredient lot

EU feed-hygiene requirements cover the supply chain and introduce HACCP principles for operators beyond primary production. Treatment evidence should sit within that broader control system, not replace it. Commission feed-hygiene overview

For a commercial release file, we recommend linking the ingredient identity and lot number to the treatment date, operator, preparation batch and application record. Ask the technical team which process checks and acceptance results are appropriate for the actual material and intended use. Keep the sampling basis and any limits on what a test establishes visible to the person approving release.

Do not accept an undocumented promise that treatment makes damaged or nonconforming goods suitable. Equally, do not assume that every treated material needs the same test package. Define the evidence through the product assessment, agreed specification and applicable requirements. Where information conflicts, hold the purchasing decision for clarification instead of selecting the most convenient result.

Keep handling controls visible to the receiving team

The opinion identifies formic acid as corrosive and exposure to the assessed additives as a user risk. Sodium-formate hazards differ between solid and liquid forms. EFSA user-safety conclusions

For businesses receiving or applying the preparations, our recommendation is to involve the safety team before ordering, not after delivery. Obtain the current safety data sheet and have the responsible specialist assess unloading, transfer, storage and exposure controls. Do not derive protective measures from an ingredient's nutritional specification or infer that an animal-safety conclusion clears worker handling.

When purchasing treated ingredients, ask what handling information is relevant to the delivered goods. Avoid automatically transferring the hazard classification of a concentrated preparation to the finished ingredient, or assuming that no precautions are needed. The receiving instructions should describe the actual product and operation.

Make unresolved questions part of the buying decision

Put the treatment information beside the ordinary specification, lot Certificate of Analysis and delivery terms. Name an owner for each unanswered technical or regulatory question and agree the decision deadline. For recurring supply, define how changes of preparation, treatment site or process will be communicated.

This approach makes a treatment claim commercially useful without overstating it. A buyer can compare offers on documented identity, supported process and practical delivery readiness, rather than on the reassuring sound of a single phrase. Count a consignment as approved only when the responsible teams have accepted the evidence needed for that transaction.