4.4 Article

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of locust bean gum for all animal species (Dupont Nutrition and Health)

Journal

EFSA JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7435

Keywords

technological additives; emulsifiers; gelling agents; stabilisers; thickeners; locust bean gum; safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following a request from the European Commission, the FEEDAP Panel evaluated the safety and efficacy of locust bean gum as a feed additive for all animal species. Due to insufficient data, conclusions could not be made regarding its safety for the target species or the user. However, the use of locust bean gum in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use does not pose concerns for consumer safety or the environment. The additive has potential as a gelling agent, thickener, and stabilizer when used in synergy with carrageenan, but its efficacy as an emulsifier remains inconclusive due to lack of data.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of locust bean gum as a technological feed additive (functional group: emulsifiers, gelling agents, stabilisers and thickeners) for all animal species. Owing the lack of sufficient data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the target species or the user. The use of locust bean gum in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for consumer safety and the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has potential to be efficacious as gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed when used in synergy with another hydrocolloid (carrageenan). In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the locust bean gum as an emulsifier.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available