Search

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), with the support of the International Life Sciences Institute, European Branch (ILSI Europe), organized an international conference on 16-18 November 2005 to discuss how regulatory and advisory bodies evaluate the potential risks of the presence in food of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. The objectives of the conference were to discuss the possible approaches for risk assessment of such substances, how the approaches may be interpreted and whether they meet the needs of risk managers. ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) provides advice based solely on hazard identification and does not take into account either potency or human exposure. The use of quantitative low-dose extrapolation of dose-response data from an animal bioassay raises numerous scientific uncertainties related to the selection of mathematical models and extrapolation down to levels of human exposure. There was consensus that the margin of exposure (MOE) was the preferred approach because it is based on the available animal dose-response data, without extrapolation, and on human exposures. The MOE can be used for prioritisation of risk management actions but the conference recognised that it is difficult to interpret it in terms of health risk.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) is a pragmatic risk assessment tool that is based on the principle of establishing a human exposure threshold value for all chemicals, below which there is a very low probability of an appreciable risk to human health. The concept that there are levels of exposure that do not cause adverse effects is inherent in setting acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for chemicals with known toxicological profiles. The TTC principle extends this concept by proposing that a de minimis value can be identified for many chemicals, in the absence of a full toxicity database, based on their chemical structures and the known toxicity of chemicals which share similar structural characteristics. The establishment and application of widely accepted TTC values would benefit consumers, industry and regulators. By avoiding unnecessary toxicity testing and safety evaluations when human intakes are below such a threshold, application of the TTC approach would focus limited resources of time, cost, animal use and expertise on the testing and evaluation of substances with the greatest potential to pose risks to human health and thereby contribute to a reduction in the use of animals. An Expert Group of the European branch of the International Life Sciences Institute - ILSI Europe -has examined the TTC principle for its wider applicability in food safety evaluation. The Expert Group examined metabolism and accumulation, structural alerts, endocrine disrupting chemicals and specific endpoints, such as neurotoxicity, teratogenicity, developmental toxicity, allergenicity and immunotoxicity, and determined whether such properties or endpoints had to be taken into consideration specifically in a step-wise approach. The Expert Group concluded that the TTC principle can be applied for low concentrations in food of chemicals that lack toxicity data, provided that there is a sound intake estimate. The use of a decision tree to apply the TTC principle is proposed, and this paper describes the step-wise process in detail. Proteins, heavy metals and polyhalogenated-dibenzodioxins and related compounds were excluded from this approach. When assessing a chemical, a review of prior knowledge and context of use should always precede the use of the TTC decision tree. The initial step is the identification and evaluation of possible genotoxic and/or high potency carcinogens. Following this step, non-genotoxic substances are evaluated in a sequence of steps related to the concerns that would be associated with increasing intakes. For organophosphates a TTC of 18small mu, Greekg per person per day (0.3 small mu, Greekg/kg bw/day) is proposed, and when the compound is not an OP, the TTC values for the Cramer structural classes III, II and I, with their respective TTC levels (e.g. 1800, 540 and 90 small mu, Greekg per person per day; or 30, 9 and 1.5 small mu, Greekg/kg bw /day), would be applied sequentially. All other endpoints or properties were shown to have a distribution of no observed effect levels (NOELs) similar to the distribution of NOELs for general toxicity endpoints in Cramer classes I, II and III. The document was discussed with a wider audience during a workshop held in March 2003 (see list of workshop participants).

Epidemiologic studies directly contribute data on risk (or benefit) in humans as the investigated species, and in the full food intake range normally encountered by humans. This paper starts with introducing the epidemiologic approach, followed by a discussion of perceived differences between toxicological and epidemiologic risk assessment. Areas of contribution of epidemiology to the risk assessment process are identified, and ideas for tailoring epidemiologic studies to the risk assessment procedures are suggested, dealing with data collection, analyses and reporting of both existing and new epidemiologic studies. The dietary habits and subsequent disease occurrence of over three million people are currently under observation worldwide in cohort studies, offering great potential for use in risk assessment. The use of biomarkers and data on genetic susceptibility are discussed. The paper describes a scheme to classify epidemiologic studies for use in risk assessment, and deals with combining evidence from multiple studies. Using a matrix approach, the potential contribution to each of the steps in the risk assessment process is evaluated for categories of food substances. The contribution to risk assessment of specific food substances depends on the quality of the exposure information. Strengths and weaknesses are summarized. It is concluded that epidemiology can contribute significantly to hazard identification, hazard characterisation and exposure assessment. © 2002 ILSI. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Chemicals/CAS: Biological Markers; Hazardous Substances

Hazard characterisation of low molecular weight chemicals in food and diet generally use a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or a benchmark dose as the starting point. For hazards that are considered not to have thresholds for their mode of action, low-dose extrapolation and other modelling approaches may be applied. The default position is that rodents are good models for humans. However, some chemicals cause species-specific toxicity syndromes. Information on quantitative species differences is used to modify the default uncertainty factors applied to extrapolate from experimental animals to humans. A central theme for extrapolation is unravelling the mode of action for the critical effects observed. Food can be considered as an extremely complex and variable chemical mixture. Interactions among low molecular weight chemicals are expected to be rare given that the exposure levels generally are far below their NOAELs. Hazard characterisation of micronutrients must consider that adverse effects may arise from intakes that are too low (deficiency) as well as too high (toxicity). Interactions between different nutrients may complicate such hazard characterisations. The principle of substantial equivalence can be applied to guide the hazard identification and hazard characterisation of macronutrients and whole foods. Macronutrients and whole foods must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and cannot follow a routine assessment protocol. © 2002 ILSI. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Chemicals/CAS: Hazardous Substances; Micronutrients