Assessment of eight feed additives consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CNCM I‐3235, L. plantarum CNCM I‐3736/DSM 11672, Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐3237, P. acidilactici CNCM I‐4622/DSM 11673, Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 12455, Acidipropionibacterium acidipropionici CNCM I‐4661, Lentilactobacillus buchneri NCIMB 40788/CNCM I‐4323 and L. buchneri NCIMB 40788/CNCM I‐4323 plus Lentilactobacillus hilgardii CNCM I‐4785 for all animal species for the renewal of their authorisation (Danstar Ferment AG)
Meta data
Legal notice: Relevant information or parts of this scientific output have been blackened in accordance with the confidentiality requests formulated by the applicant pending a decision thereon by the European Commission. The full output has been shared with the European Commission, EU Member States and the applicant. The blackening will be subject to review once the decision on the confidentiality requests is adopted by the European Commission.
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of eight technological additives, including two Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) [CNCM I‐3235 and CNCM I‐3736/ DSM 11672], two Pediococcus acidilactici [CNCM I‐3237 and CNCM I‐4622/DSM 11673], one Pediococcus pentosaceus [NCIMB 12455], one Acidipropionibacterium acidipropionici (formerly Propionibacterium acidipropionici) [CNCM I‐4661], one Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) [NCIMB 40788/ CNCM I‐4323], and the additive composed by the two active agents L. buchneri NCIMB 40788/ CNCM I‐4323 and Lentilactobacillus hilgardii (formerly Lactobacillus hilgardii) CNCM I‐4785, as silage additives for use in forage for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additives currently on the market comply 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 concluded that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives should be considered as respiratory sensitisers. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additives, with the exception for Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622/DSM 11673 (for which the Panel concluded that is non‐irritant to skin and eyes). There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.