Open AccessAssessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) DSM 8862 and L. plantarum DSM 8866 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Dr. Pieper Technologie‐ und Produktentwicklung GmbH)
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,
Brantom Paul,
Saarela Maria,
Galobart Jaume,
Brozzi Rosella,
Innocenti Matteo,
Ortuño Jordi,
Pizzo Fabiola,
TarrésCall Jordi,
Revez Joana
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.2022.7604
Subject(s) - lactobacillus plantarum , context (archaeology) , biology , authorization , european commission , animal species , food science , microbiology and biotechnology , toxicology , zoology , european union , business , lactic acid , bacteria , paleontology , genetics , computer security , computer science , economic policy
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA 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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum ) DSM 8862 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis ) DSM 8866 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin irritant but no conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive nor to the skin sensitisation potential. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.