4.4 Article

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a feed additive for cats (NBF Lanes s.r.l.)

Journal

EFSA JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7437

Keywords

zootechnical additives; gut flora stabilisers; Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 32264; cats; efficacy; NBF-2

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA conducted a scientific study on the efficacy of Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 32264 as a feed additive for cats. The study found that the strain has the potential to improve fecal consistency in cats, but there are some reservations about its long-term effects.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of a product consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a zootechnical additive for cats. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32264 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for cats at a minimum inclusion level of 6 x 10(9) colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32264 for cats. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive for cats. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that L. reuteri DSM 32264 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from cats receiving the additive at 1 x 10(10) CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel had some reservations on the effects in the moisture content, which if maintained overtime, might cast doubts on the benefits on the long-term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation.

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