Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Microferm Ltd.)
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
L. brevis has been granted Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) status, underscoring its safety for food applications.
“It has been granted Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) status, underscoring its safety for food applications [24].”
From Bile Salt Hydrolase Activity in the Food-Derived Strain Levilactobacillus brevis M3R3: Genomic and Functional Characterization (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The Assessment > Safety section says the panel used the QPS approach and concluded that L. brevis DSM 16680 remains safe for target animals, consumers and the environment when used as a silage additive. It does not state that the strain was formally granted QPS status or assess its safety for food applications. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Guidance on the characterisation of microorganisms used as feed additives or as production organisms
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Rychen, G., Aquilina, G., Azimonti, G., Bampidis, V., Bastos, M. D. L., Bories, G., Chesson, A., Cocconcelli, P. S., Flachowsky, G., et al. (2018) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5206 · Cited by 1,009 · see citing works
Self-citation(EFSA), E. F. S. A. (2021) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6506 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Guidance on the renewal of the authorisation of feed additives
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Bampidis, V., Azimonti, G., Bastos, M. D. L., Christensen, H. K., Dusemund, B., Durjava, M. F., Kouba, M., López‐Alonso, M., Puente, S. L., et al. (2021) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6340 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Self-citation(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H., Koutsoumanis, K. P., Allende, A., Álvarez‐Ordóñez, A., Bolton, D., Bover‐Cid, S., Chemaly, M., Cesare, A. D., Hilbert, F., Lindqvist, R., et al. (2023) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7747 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F. (2014) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3534 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agolino, G., Cristofolini, M., Ronsivalle, M. A., Cattivelli, A., Tagliazucchi, D., Caggia, C., Solieri, L., & Randazzo, C. L. (2026) · Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins · doi:10.1007/s12602-025-10810-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- (FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Villa, R. E., Azimonti, G., Bonos, E., Christensen, H., Durjava, M., Dusemund, B., Gehring, R., Glandorf, B., Kouba, M., López‐Alonso, M., Marcon, F., Nebbia, C., Pechová, A., Prieto‐Maradona, M., Röhe, I., Theodoridou, K., Anguita, M., Bozzi Cionci, N., Brozzi, R., Innocenti, M. L., & Revez, J.
- Corresponding author
- EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)
- ORCID
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e8934-e8934
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11292210
- OpenAlex
- W4401224483
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nd
- Locations
- EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Keywords
- feed additives, silage additives, authorisation renewal, safety assessment, animal species, consumer safety, environmental safety, lactic acid bacteria
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
