# Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Microferm Ltd.)

**Authors:** Roberto Edoardo Villa, Giovanna Azimonti, Eleftherios Bonos, Henrik Christensen, Mojca Durjava, Birgit Dusemund, Ronette Gehring, Boet Glandorf, Maryline Kouba, Marta López‐Alonso, Francesca Marcon, Carlo Nebbia, Alena Pechová, Miguel Prieto‐Maradona, Ilen Röhe, Katerina Theodoridou, Montserrat Anguita, Nicole Bozzi Cionci, Matteo L. Innocenti, Joana Revez

PMC · DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9248 · EFSA Journal · 2025-02-13

## TL;DR

This paper evaluates the safety of a microbial feed additive for animals and concludes it remains safe under current conditions.

## Contribution

The paper confirms the safety of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 for renewal of authorization without new evidence contradicting prior conclusions.

## Key findings

- The additive is safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under current conditions.
- The additive is a skin and respiratory sensitiser, posing risks through exposure.
- No data was available to assess eye irritation potential.

## 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 the authorisation of a preparation Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant 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 was no new evidence that would lead the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions for all animal species, consumers and the environment, for which the additive is considered to remain safe. Regarding the user safety, the additive is a preparation containing a microorganism and therefore should be considered a 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 renewal of the authorisation.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** eye irritation (MESH:D005128)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11822367/full.md

## References

5 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11822367/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11822367