Methodology and Fact-Checking

Every value on AnimalFeedAdditives.net comes from a named primary source, mainly the authorising EU act, EFSA opinions, eCFR and FDA documents, and is written with its instrument and date. "Feed additive" is the legal term of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Art. 2(2)(a).

The sections below cover sources, checks, wording of doses and status, limits, corrections and independence.

Where Do the Facts on This Site Come From?#

The facts on this site come from six groups of primary sources: EU legal acts and the EU Register, EFSA opinions, US federal rules and FDA documents, the GB register, chemical identity registers, and peer-reviewed studies.

EU acts, register entries and EFSA opinions#

The authorising implementing regulation, read on EUR-Lex or the Publications Office, is the source of every EU identification number, species, minimum or maximum content and expiry date. An authorisation runs for 10 years, and a renewal application is due one year before expiry (Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Art. 9(8) and 14(1)). Renewal notes are read in the EU Register of Feed Additives, which has been online in the Food and Feed Information Portal since 5 April 2023 and whose text is not legally binding.

The register can carry data errors: on 3 November 2026, 46 records cite a transitional note naming Regulation (EU) 2024/1724, a Council implementing regulation on Somalia sanctions, so the act is read, not the summary. An EFSA FEEDAP opinion is cited by its EFSA Journal DOI and is never presented as an authorisation.

US rules: eCFR, FDA CVM and AAFCO#

US status comes from the current eCFR text of 21 CFR parts 573, 582, 584 and 558 and from FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine documents, because the US has no single legal class called feed additive. The routes are 21 CFR 573 (70 sections), 582 (243) and 584 (3), an animal food GRAS notice, 21 CFR 558 (63), and AAFCO-defined ingredients under FDA enforcement policy (eCFR structure of 1 October 2026).

The routes are explained under US feed additive regulation. The AAFCO-FDA memorandum of understanding expired on 1 October 2024 (GFI #293, 24 October 2024), so AAFCO definitions are cited as definition text only. An FDA "no questions" letter is not a legal GRAS determination.

GB and other markets#

GB status comes from the FSA register and the GB statutory instruments on legislation.gov.uk: GB authorisations have no period of validity from 1 April 2025 (SI 2025/361, reg. 23(3)). China, India and Brazil appear only where a value is confirmed in an official text.

Substance identity and hazard data#

CAS numbers and structures come from PubChem, EC numbers and CLP classifications from ECHA, and an identity value that two sources give differently is not printed until the conflict is resolved. The hazard line is the harmonised Annex VI entry, else the majority ECHA C&L notified classification, else "see the product SDS".

Peer-reviewed studies and manufacturer data#

Effect sizes come from peer-reviewed studies named in the sentence with authors, year and journal, and manufacturer data appears only as the manufacturer's statement for its own product. One trial is never written as a general effect.

How Is Each Fact Checked Before Publication?#

Each fact passes five checks before it is published, from locating the primary source to recording the date it was read.

1. Locate the issuing body's text: the act, eCFR section, EFSA opinion or register record.
2. Match the value, unit and basis to that text.
3. Compare it with every other page that states the same value, so two pages never disagree.
4. Check that the value is not among the items still unresolved; if it is, leave it out.
5. Record the instrument and date in the sentence.

Which source wins when two disagree#

The legal act wins over every summary of it: an implementing regulation beats the register entry, the eCFR beats a secondary list, and a newer official text beats an older one.

Values left out until verified#

A value that cannot be confirmed in a primary source is left out, not hedged: the page says that no confirmed value exists instead of writing a number. Prices appear only as dated ranges with region, currency and unit, and market size only as a range of named publishers with year.

How Are Doses, Units and Authorisation Status Written?#

Doses, units and EU status follow one fixed pattern on every page, so a value read on a substance page means the same as on a species or regulation page.

Dose basis and units#

Every dose names its basis:

• an EU legal minimum or maximum
• a US level approved under 21 CFR 558
• an NRC requirement
• one named trial or manufacturer

EU values are per kg of complete feed with a moisture content of 12 % (Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Art. 2(2)(f)). Units are mg/kg, IU/kg, FTU/kg, CFU/kg and U/kg, with US g/ton in brackets where US practice uses it, and withdrawal in days. A legal minimum is never called a dose or an optimum.

Status wording for EU authorisations#

An EU authorisation runs for 10 years, so each status statement names the act and its expiry, and an entry past its printed expiry is described in one of three fixed wordings. Article 14 renewals are set out in the EU feed additive regulation.

No wording on this site says an entry is expired, withdrawn, banned or renewed unless an act says so.

EU and US status side by side#

EU and US status stand in adjacent cells or sentences, because a US approval never implies EU status and an EU authorisation never implies US status. The US route is named by part and section, and a holder only where the act is holder-bound.

Limits of the Information: No Veterinary or Nutrition Advice#

The site describes feed additives, their legal status and evidence, and gives no veterinary, treatment or individual nutrition advice. Formulation decisions rest with the reader's own nutritionist or veterinarian, and the site never writes that an EU feed additive prevents, treats or cures disease.

Feed materials, compound feed, equipment, veterinary drugs outside feed and human supplements are outside the site. Antibiotics, hormones and beta-agonists appear only as approval status, history and alternatives by jurisdiction.

How Are Reported Errors Checked and Corrected?#

A reported error is checked against the same primary source as the original value, and a confirmed error is corrected on every page that states the value. Reports go to editorial@animalfeedadditives.net.

Pages are re-checked when a new implementing regulation, register change, eCFR amendment, FDA GRAS notice change, AAFCO Official Publication edition or EFSA opinion appears. EU status statements are re-checked against the register monthly.

Independence of the Fact-Checking#

No supplier, manufacturer or advertiser pays for a value, a ranking or a listing on this site, so no commercial interest decides which source wins. The rules on independence and request disclosure, including correction notes, are kept in the editorial policy.

Revenue comes from supplier quote requests and expert matching; the site sells no product. The line under every request form reads: "We pass requests on to independent suppliers and experts; nobody pays to be named on this site (see the editorial policy)." No company is ranked, and the site runs no analytics or advertising vendors.

Byline, Privacy and Contact#

Three related policies complete this method: who signs the pages, what happens to data sent through a form, and how to reach the editors.

Byline and authorship#

Every page is signed by the AnimalFeedAdditives.net Editorial Team, and no page names an individual author or reviewer.

Privacy and form data#

Retention is set out in the privacy policy.

Contact the editorial team#

• Error reports and editorial questions: editorial@animalfeedadditives.net or the Contact form
• Who publishes the site: About AnimalFeedAdditives.net