Search

A tiered intake assessment approach is presented and applied to derive the maximum potential global low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) intake estimates. The US and Uk markets served as representative for the world and the EU region, respectively, to determine the maximum potential exposure for acesulfame potassium (AceK), aspartame, saccharin, steviol glycosides, and sucralose in various subpopulations, including brand-loyal consumers. Conservative intake estimates for LNCS used in non-alcoholic beverages were calculated for the general population 2 + y, toddlers (12-35 months (US) or 18-35 months (UK)), young children 3-9 y, adolescents 10-17 y, adults 18-64 y, elderly 65-74 y, and very elderly 75 + y based on assumed uses in high beverage consumption markets, leveraging either the 2-day food consumption data from the 2013-2016 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey or the 4-day food consumption data from the 2008-2017 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling Programme. Strong concordance between the refined budget method and the brand-loyal deterministic approach was shown, the latter assumes the maximum industry-reported global LNCS use level is present in 100% of non-alcoholic beverages. This study shows that safety of LNCS in beverages at proposed use levels can be supported for any geography, with all intake estimates falling below the acceptable daily intake in refined assessments. Importantly, this study shows the refined budget method to be a valid first-tier screening assessment in prioritising those LNCS that may benefit from more refined intake assessments when warranted.

There are many initiatives in Europe trying to refine the exposure assessment for food packaging migrants. In the USA, the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) uses food consumption and food-type distribution factors to aid the exposure assessment process and generate more realistic estimates of exposure. The present study developed food-consumption factors and food-type distribution factors for Irish children aged 5-12 years from data collected as part of a National Children's Food Survey (NCFS) completed in Ireland in 2003-04, combined with data from the 2003-05 Irish Food Packaging Database and from literature data on surface area-to-weight ratios for food packaging. Consumption factors are defined as the fraction of a person's diet likely to contact a specific food-contact material, while food-type distribution factors reflect the fraction of all food contacting each material that is aqueous, acidic, alcoholic or fatty. In this study, it was found that 'total plastics' had the highest consumption factor of 0.83, while 'total paper and board' had a factor of 0.13 and 'total metal and alloys' had a factor of 0.06. Although it is tentative to compare the US FDA factors with the factors derived in the current study, as the US FDA data are for the total US population, the consumption factor for 'total plastics' in the present study (0.83) was similar to that used by the US FDA (0.79). However, a large difference existed for the consumption factor for 'total metal and alloys' in the Irish data (0.06) and the US FDA data (0.2). In terms of the type of materials used for foods, glass was used mainly for acidic foods (0.67), while plastic was uniformly used for all food types. The food-contact area for plastic packaging for all foods consumed by children was 10.67 dm2/child day(-1), which is slightly lower than the proposed value for the average European consumer of 12.4 dm2/person day(-1). However, this should be expected, as children do not consume as much food as adults. When scenario exposure estimates were made, it was found that when using European Union assumptions, estimates were much larger than when using consumption factors and food-type distribution factors in the exposure assessment, even when conservative assumptions were employed for the consumption factor. This study highlights the potential use of consumption factors and food-type distribution factors in the refinement of the exposure assessment process and how these factors can be calculated using data collected as part of a national food survey.

In the European Union (EU), many assumptions are employed to calculate the intake of migrating chemicals from food packaging. However, very little is known about the actual intake of packaged food, the type of this food and the type of packaging used for this food. The objective of the current study was to examine intakes of packaged food in children aged 5-12 years to provide information on the types of food that are packaged and the type of packaging used. To do this, a food-consumption database, which also recorded information on packaging, was merged with a packaging database, which provided information on the contact layers of packaging. Foods were classified into EU Food categories according to European Council Directive EC 85/575/EEC (European Council 1985), which determined their food type (i.e. aqueous, acidic, alcoholic and fatty). The mean daily intake of all packaged food was 1195 g day-1 with an upper intake of 1959 g day-1 (97.5th percentile); the intake of food packaged in plastic was 993 g day-1 with an upper percentile of 1692 g day-1 (97.5th percentile). The mean daily intake of fat from all packaged food was 62 g day-1, with an upper intake of 100 g day-1 (97.5th percentile). When this was investigated further, it was found that the mean fat intake from packaged 'fatty' foods only was 32 g day-1, with an upper intake of 61 g day-1 (97.5th percentile). The food that contributed most to fat intake was milk. As many food chemical intake assessments are moving towards probabilistic methods, probabilities of a food being packaged and the probability of the type of packaging used were determined. The probability of food being packaged was 0.88. Some foods not 100% packaged included fruit, vegetables, liquid beverages non-alcoholic (includes water) and bread. Probabilities were also derived for the packaging types used for food. It can be concluded that not all the individual assumptions used in the EU exposure assessment are conservative, but in combination they are conservative.