Cargando…

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Chr. Hansen A/S)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bampidis, Vasileios, Azimonti, Giovanna, Bastos, Maria de Lourdes, Christensen, Henrik, Dusemund, Birgit, Fašmon Durjava, Mojca, Kouba, Maryline, López‐Alonso, Marta, López Puente, Secundino, Marcon, Francesca, Mayo, Baltasar, Pechová, Alena, Petkova, Mariana, Ramos, Fernando, Villa, Roberto Edoardo, Woutersen, Ruud, Alija‐Novo, Natalia, Anguita, Montserrat, Brozzi, Rosella, García‐Cazorla, Yolanda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10598427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37886607
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8346
Descripción
Sumario:Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.