Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%–45%.

Abstract Ammonium propionate is authorised as a liquid preparation of ≥ 19% ammonium propionate, ≤ 80% propionic acid and ≤ 30% water. The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation of ammonium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of ammonium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin and eyes. Any exposure is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Propionic acid is currently authorised as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicants have provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of propionic acid under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive to the skin and any exposure to users is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with all fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. coryniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 has the potential to improve the production of silages prepared from all fresh plant materials at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. lactis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. 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 Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species.

Abstract 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 safety of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Abstract 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 safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

Abstract 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 safety of ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. 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 was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract 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 safety of propyl gallate as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumer and on a safe level of propyl gallate for cats. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that propyl gallate at a maximum concentration of 71 mg/kg complete feed is safe for cats. The FEEDAP Panel extrapolated the conclusions on the safety for the target species reached in its previous assessment to other physiologically related species and to all other animal species. Propyl gallate is considered safe for the consumer when used in complete feed for all animal species at the concentrations considered safe for the target species.

Abstract 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 safety of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material 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 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, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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) NCIMB 30083 as a technological additive, silage additive 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 that would 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 should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 three additives consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3676, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 3677 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 13573, respectively, as technological additives to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant 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 concludes that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives are not irritant to skin or eyes, but owing to their proteinaceous nature they should be considered respiratory sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additives. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisations.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 23375, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material 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 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, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive L. plantarum DSM 23375 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested ■■■■■. It should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32650 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage from easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material with a dry matter content ranging from 28% to 45%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator) in feed for horses, dogs, cats and pet rabbits. The additive is intended to be incorporated into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) at a minimum inclusion level of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg of the feed material under scope. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of this strain in animal nutrition is safe for the target species, consumers of horse meat and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested containing maltodextrin and oat bran as carriers, but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that incorporation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 at a minimum concentration of 8.0 × 1010 CFU/kg into oat‐derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh‐derived products (≥ 90% moisture) has the potential to reduce the pH of these feedingstuffs.

Abstract 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 safety of lignosulphonate, when used as a technological additive (functional group: binders) in feed for all animal species. In two previous assessments, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the maximum level proposed of 10,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is safe for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, laying hens and cattle for fattening, but a margin of safety could not be identified. Consequently, these conclusions could not be extrapolated to other animal species/categories. In the current application, the applicant proposed to reduce the maximum content of lignosulphonate in feed for all animal species to 8,000 mg/kg complete feed. The results of two newly submitted tolerance studies allowed the Panel to conclude that 8,000 mg lignosulphonate/kg complete feed is also safe for dairy cows and salmonids, with a margin of safety of at least 1.25. Considering the results of the studies previously assessed and those of the two new tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that lignosulphonate is safe for all animal species when used at a maximum content of 8,000 mg/kg complete feed.

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376, as a technological additive to improve ensiling of 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 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, 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. No conclusions can 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the preparation consisting of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I‐4606, B. subtilis CNCM I‐5043, B. subtilis CNCM I‐4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I‐4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The Panel also considered the additive to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser, but a respiratory sensitiser. Moreover, the data provided were not sufficient to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these flaws and limited the claimed effect to ‘prevent (re)contamination by Salmonella Typhimurium’. Based on the new studies, the Panel concluded that the additive at a minimum proposed inclusion level of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) B. subtilis and 1 × 109 CFU L. lactis per litre showed potential to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium growth in feeds with high moisture content (60–90% moisture).

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 safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I‐3699 intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) in forage for all species. In a previous opinion, the additive was described as containing viable but not cultivable cells of the two strains in a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of total lactic acid bacteria counts of 5 × 108 Viable Forming Units (VFU)/g additive. However, in that opinion the Panel could not fully characterise the additive or conclude on its dermal/ocular irritancy or sensitisation potential. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these gaps. The proposed methodology to discriminate and individually quantify the two strains composing the additive still presented limitations. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the data available do not allow to fully characterise the additive. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the taxonomical identification of the strain CNCM I‐3699, and consequently, on its eligibility for the application of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. Therefore, the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive based on the QPS approach could not be confirmed. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel reiterated its previous conclusions that no conclusions can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive to improve the ensiling process of forage.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lentilactobacillus diolivorans (formerly Lactobacillus diolivorans) DSM 33625 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species L. diolivorans is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. The additive is not a skin or an eye irritant. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on the skin sensitisation of the additive. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lentilactobacillus diolivorans DSM 33625 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg forage may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage material with a DM range of 32–65%.

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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives to improve ensiling of forages consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) strains ATCC 55058 and ATCC 55942, respectively, for all animal species. Both additives are intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 5 × 106 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. In two previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy due to the absence of any significant evidence of nutrient preservation. Based on three new efficacy studies provided by the applicant as supplementary information, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of L. plantarum strains ATCC 55058 or ATCC 55942, have the potential to improve the ensiling process by reducing protein degradation in all type of forages as indicated by the reduction of ammonia production.

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 safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator and hygiene condition enhancers) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in mash compound feeds and/or solid feed materials used for the preparation of liquid feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU kg feed. The bacterial species is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of this strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser but is not irritant to eyes/skin or a skin sensitiser. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 at 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed showed the potential to reduce the pH and the growth of coliforms in liquid feeds. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, decoquinate and nicarbazin at the highest authorised levels for chickens for fattening.

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 safety and efficacy of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 5 × 107 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 5 × 107 CFU/kg forage has the potential to improve the production of silages from moderately difficult to ensile forages.

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 safety and efficacy of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive BHT is considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum proposed concentration of 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to pigs for fattening. In the absence of data, no conclusion on the safety for the other target species could be drawn. The exposure of the consumer to BHT from tissues and products of animals fed the additive ranged from 1% to 3% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of BHT as a feed additive at the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the consumers. Exposure of the user to BHT via inhalation is likely; however, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential inhalation toxicity of the additive. BHT is a skin and eye irritant, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of BHT for the environment. The additive BHT is considered an efficacious antioxidant in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

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 safety and efficacy of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive BHT is considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum proposed concentration of 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to pigs for fattening. In the absence of data, no conclusion on the safety for the other target species could be drawn. The exposure of the consumer to BHT from tissues and products of animals fed the additive ranged from 1% to 3% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of BHT as a feed additive at the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the consumers. Exposure of the user to BHT via inhalation is likely; however, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential inhalation toxicity of the additive. BHT is a skin and eye irritant, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of BHT for the environment. The additive BHT is considered an efficacious antioxidant in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of guar gum as a feed additive for all animal species. Owing the absence of information, the genotoxic potential of the additive could not be fully assessed. From the results of tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that guar gum is safe for salmonids at a maximum concentration of 3,000 mg/kg complete feed. Guar gum is safe up to ~ 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbits, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,150 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animals, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the user. Guar gum is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener, and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the additive as an emulsifier.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of acacia gum (gum Arabic) as a feed additive for all animal species. Acacia gum is safe up to approximately 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbit, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,250 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves and salmonids. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animal, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. No exposure of the consumer to the additive or its metabolites is expected. Therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers. Acacia gum is a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion can be reached on the irritating potential to the skin or eyes. The use of acacia gum in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of acacia gum.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of agar as a feed additive for pets and non‐food‐producing animals. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of agar for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of carrageenan as a feed additive for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals. The additive is manufactured in two forms, refined and semi‐refined carrageenan. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on safety of the additives for pets and other non‐food‐producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder and emulsifier.

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 safety and efficacy of sodium alginate for all animal species. The additive is intended to be used as a technological additive (functional groups: thickeners and gelling agents). Sodium alginate is intended to be used in feedingstuffs for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 2,000 mg/kg feed and a maximum concentration of to 30,000 mg/kg feed. The data provided for the composition of the additive does not allow a proper assessment of the product consistency, purity and physico‐chemical properties. Sodium alginate is not irritant to skin but should be considered irritant to eyes, a skin and respiratory sensitiser and hazardous by inhalation. Sodium alginate is a high‐molecular‐weight polymer naturally occurring in brown algae. The use of sodium alginate in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and the environment. No conclusion could be drawn on the safety of sodium alginate for the target species or on its efficacy as a thickener or gelling agent in feed.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30236 as a technological additive for use in forage for all animal species. The additive aims at improving the production of silage and is currently authorised for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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 should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye and skin irritancy potential of the additive. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 zearalenone hydrolase (ZenA) produced by Escherichia coli DSM 32731 when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animals. The production strain E. coli DSM 32731 is genetically modified and harbours a kanamycin resistance gene. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product, but uncertainty remains on the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product. The ZenA contained in the additive is safe for all terrestrial animal species up to the maximum use levels of (in U/kg complete feed): 100 U/kg in chickens for fattening; 150 U/kg in laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits; 200 U/kg in pigs; 250 U/kg in dairy cows; 400 U/kg in veal calf (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses and cats; and 450 U/kg in dogs. Based on the ADME and toxicological data, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the ZenA contained in the additive in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers. The endotoxin content in the additive poses a risk by inhalation for users handling the additive. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. The ZenA contained in the additive and the resulting breakdown products of its enzymatic activity do not represent a safety concern for the environment. The production strain harbours an antimicrobial resistance gene and uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its recombinant DNA in the final product; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on safety of the additive for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment.

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 safety and efficacy of an additive consisting of Propionibacterium freudenreichii DSM 33189 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) DSM 12856 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony‐forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species P. freudenreichii and L. buchneri are considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to assessment. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strains as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. The additive is not irritant for eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh plant material showed the potential to improve the aerobic stability silage with dry matter content ranging from 30% to 70%.

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 Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) DSM 12856 as a technological additive for use in forage for all animal species. The additive aims at improving the production of silage and is authorised 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 concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety L. buchneri DSM 12856 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30160 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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, Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30160 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) NCIMB 30121 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised without a minimum inclusion level. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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 should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the eye and skin irritancy potential of the additive. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus paracasei) DSM 16245 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is currently authorised at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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 L. paracasei DSM 16245 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser.

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 preparation of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I‐4606, B. subtilis CNCM I‐5043, B. subtilis CNCM I‐4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I‐4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in compound feeds and feed materials for all animal species at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU B. subtilis and 1 × 109 CFU L. lactis per kg or litre. The two bacterial species are considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and they did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of these strains in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of either Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed.

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 Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 12835 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised without a minimum inclusion level. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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, L. brevis DSM 12835 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 26571 when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 26571 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile forage material.

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 Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) DSM 16774 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of 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 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 Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 16774 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 safety and efficacy of Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.

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 safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) IMI 507026 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.