Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42112196›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2012

Scientific Opinion on the removal of a maximum dose from the authorisation of microbial products assessed using the Qualified Presumption of Safety approach.

EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission has received requests for a modification of the authorisations of certain microbial products, all based on species considered by EFSA as suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. Applicants are seeking the removal of the maximum dose specified in the current authorisation on the basis that such a dose is not consistent with the QPS approach. Therefore, EFSA has been requested to provide an opinion on the implications of the deletion of the maximum dose currently applied to those authorised microbial products for which safety was assessed using the QPS approach and, more generally, in the case of all microorganisms for which this approach is used. Since the QPS assessment is not related to a specific purpose but has to take account of any reasonable use of the organism under consideration, no restrictions on the amount of the organism used for any particular application are made. Although, in principle, such a provision could be included as a "qualification" this has not proved necessary to date. Consequently, all pre-assessments made by EFSA for the microorganisms currently listed as suitable for QPS have been made independent of dose. As a consequence, unless a specific provision relating to dose is included in the "qualification" for a given taxonomic unit, safety is presumed at any reasonable dose. In such cases the setting of a maximum dose in an authorisation does not offer any additional degree of safety for target animals, consumers or the environment and, in the view of the FEEDAP Panel, is unnecessary.

Indexed as

maximum dosemicroorganismsQPSQualified Presumption of Safety

Identifiers

PMID42112196
PMCPMC13151786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.