Cited by 122Agricultural safety and regulationsFood Safety and HygieneGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a generic approach to the safety assessment by EFSA of microorganisms used in food/feed and the production of food/feed additives: Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a generic approach to the safety assessment by EFSA of microorganisms used in fo

Open access
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)·2005·EFSA Journal

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2005.226

Cites

0 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to the recent EFSA document, the requirements to be included in the QPS group include a lack of pathogenicity and the absence of acquired resistance genes.

    “According to the recent EFSA document, the requirements to be included in the ‘‘Qualified Presumption of Safety’’ (QPS) group include a lack of pathogenicity and the absence of acquired resistance genes [42].”
  • Yeasts sensu lato are generally regarded as safe, and applying yeasts in crops and on food products elicits less concern than applications of bacteria or filamentous fungi.

    “This may be the reason why yeasts sensu lato are generally regarded as safe and therefore applying yeasts in crops and on food products elicits less concern than applications of bacteria or filamentous fungi (European Food Safety Authority 2005).”

    From Biocontrol yeasts: mechanisms and applications (2019) · cites this paper as European Food Safety Authority 2005

Cites

  • European Commission 2003 On a generic approach to the safety assessment of microorganisms used in feed/food and feed/food production europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out178_en.pdf

    (n.d.)

    Unresolved

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 1 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
(EFSA), E. F. S. A.
Corresponding author
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
226
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4238501663
Cited by
122
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
food and feed additives, safety assessment, generic approach, microbiological safety, feed safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review