1996
DOI: 10.1177/019262339602400619
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diet: The Neglected Variable in Chemical Safety Evaluations

Abstract: The objectives of this review are to alert the community of toxicologic pathologists to the types and significance of

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The occurrence of tumors in the esophagus of untreated rats parallels to a considerable extent the only other case to our knowledge where taking something out of the diet, rather than adding a carcinogen, results in neoplasia. The cho line (methyl)-deficient rat develops hepatocellular carci noma [17], an event closely associated with fatty liver (steatosis) and its sequelae [18][19][20]. This will be alluded to in the discussion section.…”
Section: Tumor Incidence and Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The occurrence of tumors in the esophagus of untreated rats parallels to a considerable extent the only other case to our knowledge where taking something out of the diet, rather than adding a carcinogen, results in neoplasia. The cho line (methyl)-deficient rat develops hepatocellular carci noma [17], an event closely associated with fatty liver (steatosis) and its sequelae [18][19][20]. This will be alluded to in the discussion section.…”
Section: Tumor Incidence and Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the elimination of these exogenous stressors has allowed other variables to affect these rodent bioassays. Over the past two decades there has been a steady increase in study-to-study variability, a lack of reproducibility, and increases in the onset and severity of spontaneous degenerative disease and tumors resulting in decreased rodent survival in chronic bioassays Duffy et al, 1989;Fishbein, 1991;Hart et al, 1995;Haseman & Rao, 1992;Keenan et al, 1992Keenan et al, , 1994aKeenan et al, , 1994bKeenan et al, , 1995aKeenan et al, , 1995bKeenan et al, , 1996Keenan et al, , 1997Lang, 1991;Newberne & Sotnikov, 1996;Rao et al, 1990;Roe, 1994;Turturro et al, 1995).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The practice of overfeeding is largely one of caloric excess and is an example of nutritional overdosing. Ad libitum (AL) overfeeding is the most poorly controlled variable in these bioassays, and its complicating effects on the design, results, and interpretation of toxicity and carcinogenicity studies continue to be ignored by many risk assessment practitioners Hart et al, 1995;Keenan etal., 1996;Newberne & Sotnikov, 1996;Turturro etal., 1995). This is surprising, for the adverse phenomenon of AL caloric excess and its control by moderate dietary restriction (DR) have been well documented by toxicologists, pathologists, nutritionists, and gerontologists (Finch, 1990;Fishbein, 1991;Hart etal., 1995;Keenan etal., 1996;Klurfeld et al, 1989;Masoro & Austad, 1996;McDonald, 1997;McCay et al, 1935;Merry & Holehan, 1994;Rogers et al, 1993;Rose, 1991;Ross, 1976;Sohal & Weindruch, 1996;Yu, 1995;Weindruch & Walford, 1988;Weindruch, 1996;Weindruch & Sohal, 1997).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rats continued on the zinc-deficient diet for 2 months after dosing with MBN had a significantly in creased tumor incidence compared to rats fed the defi cient diet only through the dosing with MBN (groups 1 and 3: table 1), 82 vs. 31%, p < 0.01. indicating an effect both during and after carcinogen exposure, most evident in the former [6], This interpretation was reinforced by the observation that starting zinc deficiency after MBN dosing also significantly increased tumor incidence (group 9; table 1) compared to control diet ad libitum (59 vs. 31%; p < 0.01). Pair-feeding the control diet to the level for the reduced food intake or zinc-deficient rats sig nificantly reduced tumor incidence (14 vs. 31%; p < 0.01), reflecting the well-known influence of a reduced caloric effect on tumorigenesis [17,18]. In these studies, no tumors were found in organs or tissues other than the esophagus.…”
Section: Tumorigenesis St Tidiesmentioning
confidence: 69%