z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bifidobacterium longum CNCM I‐5642 ( PP102I ) for cats and dogs (Nestlé Enterprises S.A.)
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,
Martelli Giovanna,
Raj Mohan,
Anguita Montserrat,
Brozzi Rosella,
Galobart Jaume,
Pettenati Elisa,
Revez Joana,
TarrésCall Jordi,
Ortuño Jordi
Publication year - 2022
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.2022.7430
Subject(s) - bifidobacterium longum , european commission , feed additive , animal species , european union , bifidobacterium , biology , food science , veterinary medicine , medicine , business , zoology , broiler , fermentation , lactobacillus , economic policy
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 Bifidobacterium longum CNCM I‐5642 (PP102I) when used as a feed additive for cats and dogs. The product under assessment consists of viable cells of a strain of B. longum , a species considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The strain was unambiguously identified as B. longum and was shown not to harbour antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, thus meeting the QPS requirements. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment and since no concerns are expected from maltodextrin, the other component of the additive, PP102I was considered safe for the target species and the environment. Owing to the lack of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy potential of PP102I. However, it should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of PP102I for the target species.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here