Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 20
Filtrar
Mais filtros


Bases de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
EFSA J ; 22(4): e8706, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38585215

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

2.
EFSA J ; 22(3): e8621, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38450082

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant 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 regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. 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.

3.
EFSA J ; 22(2): e8623, 2024 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38410146

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive (gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The additive is available in two formulations: Lactiferm WS200 and Lactiferm Basic 50. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the additive is safe for chickens for fattening or reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The Panel also concluded that the use of the feed additive is safe for consumers, and the environment. Lactiferm WS200 is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It was not possible, however, to conclude on the irritancy potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both formulations of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The efficacy studies submitted did not allow to draw a conclusion on the efficacy of the additive for the target species. Lactiferm® is considered compatible with the coccidiostats monensin sodium and decoquinate.

4.
EFSA J ; 22(2): e8620, 2024 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38410143

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

5.
EFSA J ; 22(2): e8619, 2024 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38410149

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of the additive, 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.

6.
EFSA J ; 22(1): e8541, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38250502

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501 as a technological feed 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin and eye, but owing to its proteinaceous nature it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

7.
EFSA J ; 21(12): e8466, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38046201

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets, calves for fattening and calves for rearing. The product under assessment is based on a strain originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as Enterococcus lactis. The additive currently authorised is marketed in two formulations: Lactiferm Basic 50 (a solid formulation to be used in feed), and Lactiferm WS200 (a solid 'water-soluble' formulation to be used in water for drinking). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of Lactiferm® under the authorised conditions of use remains safe for the target species (calves up to 6 months and weaned piglets up to 35 kg), consumers and the environment. The Lactiferm WS200 formulation of the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It is not possible to conclude on the irritating potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both forms of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

8.
EFSA J ; 21(10): e08346, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37886607

RESUMO

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.

9.
EFSA J ; 21(8): e08179, 2023 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37583945

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324, Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 (GalliPro® Fit) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying or for breeding. The additive is already authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for the above-mentioned species. With this application, the company requested the modification of the current authorisations as regards the simultaneous use of the additive with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid. The proposed modification in the conditions of the authorisation would not modify the conclusions previously drawn regarding the safety of GalliPro® Fit. The additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a dermal/eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential. The Panel concluded that GalliPro® Fit is compatible with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid.

10.
EFSA J ; 21(8): e08154, 2023 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37547226

RESUMO

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 as a technological additive, silage additive 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 evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

11.
EFSA J ; 21(7): e08167, 2023 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37522101

RESUMO

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus) NCIMB 30084 as a technological feed additive, silage additive 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. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

12.
EFSA J ; 21(3): e07859, 2023 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36895576

RESUMO

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 a feed additive consisting of two bacilli strains (tradename: BioPlus® 2B) when used in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants. BioPlus® 2B is composed of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 and Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749. In the course of the current assessment, the latest strain was reclassified as Bacillus paralicheniformis. BioPlus® 2B is intended for use in feedingstuffs and water for drinking for the target species at the minimum inclusion level of 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water, respectively. B. paralicheniformis and B. subtilis are considered eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agents was established, and the qualifications regarding the lack of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, toxigenic potential and bacitracin production ability were complied with. Following the QPS approach, B. paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and B. subtilis DSM 5750 are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, BioPlus® 2B was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. BioPlus® 2B is not irritant to the eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. BioPlus® 2B when supplemented at 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water for drinking has the potential to be efficacious in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (e.g. sheep, goat, buffalo) at the same developmental stage.

13.
EFSA J ; 20(4): e07241, 2022 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35475162

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis DSM 11037, a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin and eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

14.
EFSA J ; 20(4): e07243, 2022 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35475163

RESUMO

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30117 as a technological additive for use in forage for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and eye and skin irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

15.
EFSA J ; 19(10): e06898, 2021 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34745365

RESUMO

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 26571 when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 26571 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile forage material.

16.
EFSA J ; 19(4): e06522, 2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33897861

RESUMO

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 additive consisting of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 when used as technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuffs. The bacterial species Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

17.
EFSA J ; 19(4): e06524, 2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33897863

RESUMO

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 additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 when used as technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuff. The bacterial species Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

18.
EFSA J ; 19(4): e06523, 2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33897862

RESUMO

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 additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) in feed for all animal species. The product is intended for use in dry feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feedingstuff. The bacterial species Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely and the product should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 when used in animal nutrition as hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324 is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. The data provided do not allow to conclude on the compatibility of the additive with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

19.
EFSA J ; 19(3): e06469, 2021 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33777233

RESUMO

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 additive consisting of Ligilactobacillus animalis (formerly known as Lactobacillus animalis) ATCC PTA-6750 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator, preservative and hygiene condition enhancer) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product is intended for use as a single strain at a minimum inclusion level of 5 × 106 CFU/L or CFU/kg in water, liquid and dry feeds. No minimum inclusion level is proposed by the applicant when used in combination with other microbial technological additives. The bacterial species L. animalis is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the product, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of L. animalis ATCC PTA-6750 when used in animal nutrition as an acidity regulator, preservative or hygiene condition enhancer due to lack of data. The studies provided showed that L. animalis ATCC PTA-6750 when used in combination with Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii ATCC PTA-6752 has the potential to act as an acidity regulator. However, the Panel has reservations on the effects of this mixture in practical use conditions.

20.
EFSA J ; 19(3): e06470, 2021 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33777234

RESUMO

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 additive consisting of Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii ATCC PTA-6752 when used as technological additive (acidity regulator) in dry feed at a minimum inclusion level of 2 × 109 colony-forming units (CFU)/kg and in complete or complementary liquid feed for all animal species at a minimum concentration of 1 × 109 CFU/L. No minimum concentration is proposed by the applicant when used in combination with other microbial technological additives. The bacterial species P. freudenreichii is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of the strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Exposure of users by inhalation is likely. No conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of the additive when used alone as an acidity regulator in feed due to lack of data. The studies provided showed that P. freudenreichii ssp. shermanii ATCC PTA-6752 when used in combination with Ligilactobacillus animalis ATCC PTA-6750 has the potential to act as an acidity regulator. However, the Panel has reservations on the effects of this mixture in practical use conditions.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA