Search

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 × 10 8 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 × 10 8 CFU/kg fresh material., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 dried cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 (Actisaf® Sc 47) as a zootechnical additive for rabbits for fattening and non-food producing rabbits. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive is not a skin or eye irritant. However, it should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 8 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 × 10 8 CFU/kg fresh material., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 8 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 × 10 8 CFU/kg fresh material., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 ) DSM 18114 as a technological additive (functional group: 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. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18114 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 ) ATCC 55943 as a technological additive (functional group: 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. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA-2494 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6-phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei . The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6-phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA-6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 21982 as a technological feed 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. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant 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 regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501 as a technological feed 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin and eye, but owing to its proteinaceous nature it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri ) NCIMB 30139 as a technological additive for use in easy to ensile 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is not skin irritant, but no conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation or eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 19455 as a technological feed additive for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The Panel concluded that L. buchneri DSM 19455 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, L. buchneri DSM 19455 was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive with inulin as a carrier tested is not irritant to skin and eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude 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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of K-9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® when used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) for dogs. The product under assessment is based on viable cells of Lacticaseibacillus casei IDAC 210415-01, Limosilactobacillus fermentum IDAC 210415-02, Levilactobacillus brevis IDAC 051120-02 and Enterococcus faecium IDAC 181218-03. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the identification of the strains and, therefore, the safety of the product cannot be based on the presumption of safety of the active agents. The Panel notes that the use of E. faecium IDAC 181218-03 represents a safety concern because it harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. Moreover, the hazard related to the presence of additional antimicrobial resistance genes in the active agents cannot be excluded. No tolerance trials on the target animals have been provided. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for dogs. Regarding the user safety, the Panel cannot conclude on the irritant potential of the additive for skin or eyes due to the absence of data. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a skin sensitiser. The use of K-9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® in animal nutrition represents a safety concern for the environment due to the potential carryover of at least an antimicrobial resistance gene. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of K-9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® for the target species., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Agal-Pro BL/BL-L®. The additive is a preparation of alpha-galactosidase produced by a genetically modified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo-1,4-beta-glucanase produced by a non-genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) in chickens for fattening in its solid and liquid forms (Agal-Pro BL® and Agal-Pro BL-L®), and in minor poultry species for fattening and chickens reared for laying only in its solid form (Agal-Pro BL®). 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 the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is considered an irritant to the skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, it 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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 8 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 × 10 8  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%., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 and efficacy of a product containing β-mannanase produced by a non-genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). The commercial name is Nutrixtend Optim and it is intended to be used as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry for fattening. Based on a tolerance trial in chickens for fattening and the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry for fattening. The Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not give rise to concerns for consumers and the environment. The additive is considered an irritant to skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, it is also considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive at the level of inclusion in feed of chickens for fattening of 30 U β-mannanase/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to all poultry for fattening., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 10  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 × 10 10  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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU) B. subtilis and 1 × 10 9  CFU  L. lactis per litre showed potential to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium growth in feeds with high moisture content (60-90% moisture)., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 two bacilli strains (tradename: BioPlus® 2B) when used in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants. BioPlus® 2B is composed of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 and Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749. In the course of the current assessment, the latest strain was reclassified as Bacillus paralicheniformis . BioPlus® 2B is intended for use in feedingstuffs and water for drinking for the target species at the minimum inclusion level of 1.3 × 10 9  CFU/kg feed and 6.4 × 10 8  CFU/l water, respectively. B. paralicheniformis and B. subtilis are considered eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agents was established, and the qualifications regarding the lack of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, toxigenic potential and bacitracin production ability were complied with. Following the QPS approach, B. paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and B. subtilis DSM 5750 are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, BioPlus® 2B was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. BioPlus® 2B is not irritant to the eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. BioPlus® 2B when supplemented at 1.3 × 10 9  CFU/kg complete feed and 6.4 × 10 8  CFU/l water for drinking has the potential to be efficacious in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (e.g. sheep, goat, buffalo) at the same developmental stage., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of eight technological additives, including two Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) [CNCM I-3235 and CNCM I-3736/ DSM 11672], two Pediococcus acidilactici [CNCM I-3237 and CNCM I-4622/DSM 11673] , one Pediococcus pentosaceus [NCIMB 12455], one Acidipropionibacterium acidipropionici (formerly Propionibacterium acidipropionici ) [CNCM I-4661], one Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri ) [NCIMB 40788/ CNCM I-4323], and the additive composed by the two active agents L. buchneri NCIMB 40788/ CNCM I-4323 and Lentilactobacillus hilgardii (formerly Lactobacillus hilgardii ) CNCM I-4785, as silage additives for use in forage for all animal species. The applicant has 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 concluded that the additives remain safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additives should be considered as respiratory sensitisers. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additives, with the exception for Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622/DSM 11673 (for which the Panel concluded that is non-irritant to skin and eyes). There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additives in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo-1,4-β-d-mannanase (Hemicell® HT/HT-L) produced by a genetically-modified strain of Paenibacillus lentus (DSM 33618) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species to point of lay, pigs for fattening, piglets (weaned) and minor porcine species. The production strain was obtained from a Paenibacillus lentus recipient strain that has been evaluated previously by EFSA and considered to be safe. The genetic modification does not raise safety concerns and there were no antibiotic resistance genes from the genetic modification in the production strain. Viable cells and the DNA of the production strain were not found in the intermediate product used to formulate the additive. Hemicell® HT/HT-L produced by Paenibacillus lentus DSM 33618 is considered safe for the above-mentioned target species at the intended conditions of use. The use of Hemicell® HT/HT-L as a feed additive raises no concerns for the consumer or for the environment. Hemicell® HT/HT-L is not irritant to the skin and eyes but is regarded as a dermal sensitiser and a potential respiratory sensitiser. The additive has a potential to be efficacious at 32,000 U/kg in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species, and at 48,000 U/kg in turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and weaned piglets., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 × 10 8 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 × 10 8  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%., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of concentrated liquid l-lysine, l-lysine monohydrochloride and concentrated liquid l-lysine monohydrochloride produced by Escherichia coli NITE BP-02917 as nutritional and as sensory (flavouring compound) feed additives for all animal species. The production strain did not carry ■■■■■ antimicrobial resistance genes and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final products. ■■■■■ However, since no sequences of concern remained in the production strain, the potential presence of that DNA did not raise safety concerns. The use of the three forms of l-lysine produced by E. coli NITE BP-02917 in supplementing feed to compensate for l-lysine deficiency in feedingstuffs was safe for the target species. This conclusion would also cover the use as a sensory additive. The FEEDAP Panel identified risks of nutritional imbalances and hygienic concerns for amino acids when administered simultaneously in feed and in water for drinking. The use of the three forms of l-lysine produced by E. coli NITE BP-02917 in animal nutrition was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. Concentrated liquid l-lysine, l-lysine HCl and concentrated liquid l-lysine HCl were not considered to have the potential to cause respiratory toxicity, or skin sensitisation. l-Lysine HCl and concentrated liquid l-lysine HCl were not considered skin and eye irritants. Concentrated liquid l-lysine, due to its high pH, might be corrosive for skin and eyes. The three forms were considered an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-lysine for non-ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l-lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. The three forms of the additive were also considered efficacious as feed flavouring compounds under the proposed conditions of use., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 l-lysine monohydrochloride and l-lysine sulfate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 17927, when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The active substance is l-lysine, and it was produced in two different forms: monohydrochloride (HCl) or sulfate salts. The production strain was genetically modified. Neither viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final products. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additives did not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The use of l-lysine HCl and l-lysine sulfate produced by the strain C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 in supplementing feed to compensate for l-lysine deficiency in feedingstuffs was safe for the target species. The FEEDAP Panel identified risks of nutritional imbalances and hygienic concerns for amino acids when administered simultaneously in feed and in water for drinking. The use of both forms of l-lysine produced by fermentation using C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 in animal nutrition was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. Exposure of users through inhalation to l-lysine HCl and l-lysine sulfate produced with C. glutamicum CGMCC 17927 was considered very likely. In absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of both forms of the additive to be irritant for skin and eyes or to be dermal sensitisers. l-Lysine HCl and l-lysine sulfate were considered as efficacious sources of the essential amino acid l-lysine for non-ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l-lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Bacterial conjugation is the main mechanism for horizontal gene transfer, conferring plasticity to the genome repertoire. This process is also the major instrument for the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes. Hence, gathering primary information of the mechanism underlying this genetic transaction is of a capital interest. By using fluorescent protein fusions to the ATPases that power conjugation, we have been able to track the localization of these proteins in the presence and absence of recipient cells. Moreover, we have found that more than one copy of the conjugative plasmid is transferred during mating. Altogether, these findings provide new insights into the mechanism of such an important gene transfer device., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Carranza, Menguiano, Valenzuela-Gómez, García-Cazorla, Cabezón and Arechaga.)

Bacterial conjugation is a key mechanism by which bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance. Therefore, conjugation inhibitors (COINs) are promising compounds in the fight against the spread of antibiotic resistance genes among bacteria. Unsaturated fatty acids (uFAs) and alkynoic fatty acid derivatives, such as 2-hexadecanoic acid (2-HDA), have been reported previously as being effective COINs. The traffic ATPase TrwD, a VirB11 homolog in plasmid R388, is the molecular target of these compounds, which likely affect binding of TrwD to bacterial membranes. In this work, we demonstrate that COINs are abundantly incorporated into Escherichia coli membranes, replacing palmitic acid as the major component of the membrane. We also show that TrwD binds palmitic acid, thus facilitating its interaction with the membrane. Our findings also suggest that COINs bind TrwD at a site that is otherwise occupied by palmitic acid. Accordingly, molecular docking predictions with palmitic acid indicated that it shares the same binding site as uFAs and 2-HDA, although it differs in the contacts involved in this interaction. We also identified 2-bromopalmitic acid, a palmitate analog that inhibits many membrane-associated enzymes, as a compound that effectively reduces TrwD ATPase activity and bacterial conjugation. Moreover, we demonstrate that 2-bromopalmitic and palmitic acids both compete for the same binding site in TrwD. Altogether, these detailed findings open up a new avenue in the search for effective synthetic inhibitors of bacterial conjugation, which may be pivotal for combating multidrug-resistant bacteria., (© 2018 García-Cazorla et al.)

Bacterial conjugation is the main mechanism responsible for the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes. Hence, the search for specific conjugation inhibitors is paramount in the fight against the spread of these genes. In this pursuit, unsaturated fatty acids have been found to specifically inhibit bacterial conjugation. Despite the growing interest on these compounds, their mode of action and their specific target remain unknown. Here, we identified TrwD, a Type IV secretion traffic ATPase, as the molecular target for fatty acid-mediated inhibition of conjugation. Moreover, 2-alkynoic fatty acids, which are also potent inhibitors of bacterial conjugation, are also powerful inhibitors of the ATPase activity of TrwD. Characterization of the kinetic parameters of ATPase inhibition has led us to identify the catalytic mechanism by which fatty acids exert their activity. These results open a new avenue for the rational design of inhibitors of bacterial conjugation in the fight against the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)