Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumNCIMB 30238 and Pediococcus pentosaceusNCIMB 30237 (1k21008) for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Volac International Ltd).
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumNCIMB 30238 and Pediococcus pentosaceusNCIMB 30237 (1k21008) for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Volac International Ltd). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Villa, Roberto Edoardo (AUTHOR), Azimonti, Giovanna (AUTHOR), Bonos, Eleftherios (AUTHOR), Christensen, Henrik (AUTHOR), Durjava, Mojca (AUTHOR), Dusemund, Birgit (AUTHOR), Gehring, Ronette (AUTHOR), Glandorf, Boet (AUTHOR), Kouba, Maryline (AUTHOR), López‐Alonso, Marta (AUTHOR), Marcon, Francesca (AUTHOR), Martelli, Giovanna (AUTHOR), Nebbia, Carlo (AUTHOR), Pechová, Alena (AUTHOR), Prieto‐Maradona, Miguel (AUTHOR), Theodoridou, Katerina (AUTHOR), Anguita, Montserrat (AUTHOR), Brozzi, Rosella (AUTHOR), Bozzi Cionci, Nicole (AUTHOR), Innocenti, Matteo L. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | EFSA Journal. Jun2026, Vol. 24 Issue 6, p1-11. 11p. |
| Subject Terms: | Feed additives, Silage, Pediococcus, Industrial safety, Animal species, Lactobacillus plantarum |
| Company/Entity: | European Food Safety Authority |
| 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 authorisation of a preparation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 30238 and Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30237 (1k21008) as 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. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin sensitiser, but no conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Exposure of users by dermal and respiratory routes is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of EFSA Journal is the property of European Food Safety Authority and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | GreenFILE |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| 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 authorisation of a preparation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 30238 and Pediococcus pentosaceus NCIMB 30237 (1k21008) as 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. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin sensitiser, but no conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Exposure of users by dermal and respiratory routes is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 18314732 |
| DOI: | 10.2903/j.efsa.2026.10119 |
