Open AccessAssessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) DSM 12837 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co KG )
Author(s) -
Bampidis Vasileios,
Azimonti Giovanna,
Bastos Maria de Lourdes,
Christensen Henrik,
Dusemund Birgit,
Fašmon Durjava Mojca,
Kouba Maryline,
LópezAlonso Marta,
López Puente Secundino,
Marcon Francesca,
Mayo Baltasar,
Pechová Alena,
Petkova Mariana,
Ramos Fernando,
Sanz Yolanda,
Villa Roberto Edoardo,
Woutersen Ruud,
Saarela Maria,
Galobart Jaume,
Gregoretti Lucilla,
Revez Joana,
Brozzi Rosella
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6614
Subject(s) - authorization , context (archaeology) , lactobacillus plantarum , european commission , feed additive , animal species , microbiology and biotechnology , food science , business , toxicology , biology , lactic acid , european union , computer science , zoology , computer security , bacteria , broiler , economic policy , paleontology , genetics
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 (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) DSM 12837 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.