Establishment of Reference Doses for residues of allergenic foods: Report of the VITAL Expert Panel

Taylor, Steve L.; Baumert, Joseph L.; Kruizinga, Astrid G.; Remington, Benjamin C.; Crevel, René; Brooke‐Taylor, Simon; Allen, Katrina J.; Houben, Geert F.

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.032

Cited by 242 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of pulverised peanut versus peanut flour, or the use of liquid milk versus non-fat dry milk in oral challenges did not affect the lower end of the threshold distribution, whereas more data were considered necessary for a meaningful assessment of differences among raw, boiled or fried, and baked eggs (Remington, 2013;Allen et al, 2014).…”

Section: The Bench Mark Dose Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lowest reference doses proposed were for mustard (0.05 mg) and egg (0.03 mg), followed by milk and hazelnut (0.1 mg) and by peanuts and sesame seeds (0.2 mg). Higher reference doses were proposed for soy and wheat (1 mg), cashew (2 mg) and lupin (4 mg), and the highest for shrimp (10 mg) (Allen et al, 2014;Taylor et al, 2014). Action levels calculated from reference doses need to consider the amount of a foodstuff that is consumed per meal, the concentration of the allergenic food/ingredient in the foodstuff, and coconsumption with other foodstuffs also containing the allergenic food/ingredient.…”

Section: The Bench Mark Dose and Margin Of Exposure Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Products¹

2014

EFS2

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes. In view of the request, the NDA Panel decided to update its previous opinions relative to food ingredients or substances with known allergenic potential listed in Annex IIIa of 2003/89/EC, as amended. These include cereals containing gluten, milk and dairy products, eggs, nuts, peanuts, soy, fish, crustaceans, molluscs, celery, lupin, sesame, mustard and sulphites. The opinion relates to immunoglobulin (Ig)E-and non-IgE-mediated food allergy, to coeliac disease and to adverse reactions to sulphites in food, and it does not address non-immune-mediated adverse reactions to food. It includes information on the prevalence of food allergy in unselected populations, proteins identified as food allergens, cross-reactivities, the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of foods and ingredients, methods for the detection of allergens and allergenic foods, doses observed to trigger adverse reactions in sensitive individuals and risk assessment methodologies that have been used to derive individual and population thresholds for selected allergenic foods. The present opinion relates to immunoglobulin (Ig)E-and non-IgE-mediated food allergy, to coeliac disease and to adverse reactions to sulphites in food, and it does not address non-immune-mediated adverse reactions to food. For each food ingredient or substance listed in Annex IIIa, it includes information on the prevalence of food allergy in unselected populations, on proteins identified as food allergens, on cross-reactivities, on the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of foods and ingredients, on methods for the detection of allergens and allergenic foods, and on doses observed to trigger adverse reactions in sensitive individuals.Immune-mediated adverse reactions to foods manifest with clinical signs and symptoms of variable severity and duration, which may affect different organs and systems. Anaphylactic reactions to food are IgE mediated and may occur at any age. Non-IgE-mediated food allergy includes a wide range of diseases, including protein-induced enterocolitis and eosinophilic oesophagitis.A careful family and clinical history are the basis for diagnosis of food allergy. Food diaries, skin prick tests (SPTs), allergen-specific IgE measurements, food elimination diets and food challenges are part of the standard protocol for the diagnosis of food allergy. A positive SPT indicates sensitisation to the tested food, but it is not diagnostic of food allergy. Allergen-specific serum IgE antibodies similarly denote sensitisation to a particular food, but they are not diagnostic without a clinical history or food challenge. The use of atopy patch tests for the diagnosis of food allergy is controversial. Other available tests have no current role in the diagnosis of food allergy. Diag...

show abstract

Section: The Bench Mark Dose Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Bench Mark Dose and Margin Of Exposure Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Products¹

2014

EFS2

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three parametric models (log logistic, log normal, and Weibull) were applied to derive the estimates of ED 1 (for peanut and cow's milk) and both ED 1 and ED 5 (for egg and hazelnut) whilst the 95% lower confidence interval of the ED 5 was estimated for soybean, wheat, sesame seed, lupine, mustard, cashew, and shrimp. See Allen et al (2014) and Taylor et al (2014) for further elaboration on how the reference doses were derived. Studies have estimated threshold doses that are derived from the ED to trigger a reaction in 1% (ED 01 ), 5% (ED 05 ), or 10% (ED 10 ) of the population such as the reference doses established by the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL) expert panel group for 11 major food allergens as listed in Table 5.…”

Section: Quantitative Risk Assessment To Predict Allergenic Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“May Contain” Allergen Statements: Facilitating or Frustrating Consumers?

Soon

Manning

2017

J Consum Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of mandatory labelling legislation, major food allergens that commonly cause allergic reactions are declared on packaging. The usage of precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) on packaging is not regulated in all countries, and the food industry uses various forms of "may contain" labelling which firstly is often inconsistent and secondly over time may diminish the value of such advisory statements. Hence, the aims of this paper are to review the current industry usage of PAL and to provide recommendations on future use that are of value to academics, policy makers, food industry, and consumers. A case study example is used to illustrate the likely costs and benefits of improving the current PAL status by considering a "peanut-free" product and calculation using the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL) calculator. Governance such as addressing the inconsistent usage of PALs, promoting the harmonization of language used in PALs, and improving PAL status to quantified PAL statements would be helpful in communicating risks to consumers, so they can make informed choices when purchasing food products.

show abstract

“…The amount of allergen needed to trigger an allergic reaction varies Th among individuals and diff erent allergens. Recent studies have sought to ff ff identify the minimum eliciting dose levels for many food allergens [3,4]. Though more than 160 foods have been associated with food allerTh gies, major food allergens, including milk, egg, fish, crustacean shellfi fi sh, peanut, tree nuts, wheat and soy, account for about 90% of food fi allergies [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%