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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC PTA-6139 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC PTA-6139 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18112 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18112 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18114 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18114 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the 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.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the 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.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-2494 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. 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.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6-phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DSM 34246 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and cats. The additive, with the trade name Canobios-BL, is intended for use in feed for cats and dogs at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and the additive is composed by dried cells of the active agent and an emulsifier, that are not expected to introduce any risk, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Canobios-BL is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Canobios-BL is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for dogs and cats at the use level 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed.
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55944 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55944 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55943 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18113 as a technological additive (functional group: 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18113 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 21982 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. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the 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.
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.
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 Cylactin® as a zootechnical feed additive for cats and dogs. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415 and the micro-encapsulated formulation, Cylactin® LBC ME5 PET, was assessed. 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 cats and dogs. Regarding user safety, the additive was not shown to be skin and eye irritant, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust-free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non-irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species.
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.
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.
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 Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) in regard to the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets, weaned minor porcine species, sows and minor reproductive Suidae species, and its extension of use for all Suidae. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that there is no new evidence that would lead it to reconsider the previous conclusions; the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species/categories for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that B. velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all growing Suidae (suckling, weaned and fattening Suidae) at the minimum inclusion level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg of complete feed and in sows and minor reproductive Suidae species at 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed.
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.
