2025年2月13日，歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）發布消息，歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）發布關于植物乳桿菌（Lactiplantibacillus plantarum）DSM 16627作為所有動物飼料添加劑的授權更新申請的評估。
經過評估，專家小組得出結論，該添加劑在授權使用條件下對所有動物物種、消費者和環境都是安全的。在授權更新的情況下，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 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.
經過評估，專家小組得出結論，該添加劑在授權使用條件下對所有動物物種、消費者和環境都是安全的。在授權更新的情況下，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 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.
