ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021
Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7:
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection for florfenicol resistance at sub-MIC concentrations in Pasteurella multocida.PloS one · 2025Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 2:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 4:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 5:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 6:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 9:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 8:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 10:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 11:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 13:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 12:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 3:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1:EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.