Cargando…
Safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (Lactobacillus acidophilus CECT 4529) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL when used in feed for chickens for fattening at a minimum dose of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7010198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32625464 http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4762 |
Sumario: | Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL when used in feed for chickens for fattening at a minimum dose of 1 × 10(9) colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuffs. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. acidophilus. This species is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to establish safety for the target species, consumers and the environment. The safety of Lactobacillus acidophilus CECT 4529 was assessed by EFSA in 2014. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment, Lactobacillus acidophilus CECT 4529 is assumed to be safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment without the need for further studies. No concerns are expected from other excipients present in the product, so Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL is also considered safe for target animals, including chickens for fattening, consumers and the environment. The safety of the additive for the user was also considered in that opinion. The FEEDAP Panel is unaware of any new data that would lead it to revise its conclusions that the additive should be considered to be an eye/skin irritant and a skin/respiratory sensitiser. There is insufficient evidence to conclude on the efficacy of the additive when used in diets for chickens for fattening. |
---|