Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 19457 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Biomin GmbH). (6th January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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; Sanz, Yolanda; Villa, Roberto Edoardo; Woutersen, Ruud; Anguita, Montserrat; García, Yolanda; Brozzi, Rosella
• Is Part Of: EFSA journal. Volume 21:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2023-01-06
• Subjects: technological additive -- silage additive -- Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 19457 -- safety -- efficacy -- QPS -- renewal; Food -- Europe -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Food Safety; Food -- Safety measures; Europe; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Government Publications, International; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Periodicals; 363.19209405
• DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7697
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1831-4732

Abstract

Abstract: 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 ) DSM 19457 as a technological additive for use in 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 evidence to 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 is not irritant to skin or eyes but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, 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.