2022年4月21日，歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）發(fā)布消息，歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）發(fā)布關(guān)于乳酸乳球菌（Lactococcus lactis）DSM 11037作為所有動物飼料添加劑的授權(quán)更新申請的評估。
經(jīng)過評估，專家小組得出結(jié)論，該添加劑在授權(quán)使用條件下對所有動物物種、消費者和環(huán)境都是安全的。在缺乏數(shù)據(jù)的情況下，評估小組無法就添加劑的皮膚過敏潛力得出結(jié)論。在授權(quán)更新的情況下，無需評估添加劑的功效。部分原文報道如下：
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis DSM 11037, 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin and eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel cannot 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.
經(jīng)過評估，專家小組得出結(jié)論，該添加劑在授權(quán)使用條件下對所有動物物種、消費者和環(huán)境都是安全的。在缺乏數(shù)據(jù)的情況下，評估小組無法就添加劑的皮膚過敏潛力得出結(jié)論。在授權(quán)更新的情況下，無需評估添加劑的功效。部分原文報道如下：
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis DSM 11037, 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin and eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel cannot 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.
