Risk assessment of carcinogens in food

被引:54
|
作者
Barlow, Susan [1 ]
Schlatter, Josef [1 ]
机构
[1] Consumer Protect Directorate, Fed Off Publ Hlth, CH-8004 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
Risk assessment; Carcinogen; Genotoxic; Non-genotoxic; Food; GENOTOXIC CARCINOGENS; CANCER; MODE; MECHANISMS; ACRYLAMIDE; THRESHOLD; FRAMEWORK; CHEMICALS; RELEVANCE; FUTURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.taap.2009.11.004
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Approaches for the risk assessment of carcinogens in food have evolved as scientific knowledge has advanced. Early methods allowed little more than hazard identification and an indication of carcinogenic potency. Evaluation of the modes of action of carcinogens and their broad division into genotoxic and epigenetic (non-genotoxic, non-DNA reactive) carcinogens have played an increasing role in determining the approach followed and provide possibilities for more detailed risk characterisation, including provision of quantitative estimates of risk. Reliance on experimental animal data for the majority of risk assessments and the fact that human exposures to dietary carcinogens are often orders of magnitude below doses used in experimental studies has provided a fertile ground for discussion and diverging views on the most appropriate way to offer risk assessment advice. Approaches used by national and international bodies differ, with some offering numerical estimates of potential risks to human health, while others express considerable reservations about the validity of quantitative approaches requiring extrapolation of dose-response data below the observed range and instead offer qualitative advice. Recognising that qualitative advice alone does not provide risk managers with information on which to prioritise the need for risk management actions, a "margin of exposure" approach for substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic has been developed, which is now being used by the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority. This review describes the evolution of risk assessment advice on carcinogens and discusses examples of ways in which carcinogens in food have been assessed in Europe. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:180 / 190
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] CARCINOGENS IN FOOD - REPLY
    GRASSO, P
    CHEMISTRY IN BRITAIN, 1970, 6 (04) : 185 - &
  • [42] Food-Borne Chemical Carcinogens and the Evidence for Human Cancer Risk
    Kobets, Tetyana
    Smith, Benjamin P. C.
    Williams, Gary M.
    FOODS, 2022, 11 (18)
  • [43] Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?
    Braakhuis, H. M.
    Slob, W.
    Olthof, E. D.
    Wolterink, G.
    Zwart, E. P.
    Gremmer, E. R.
    Rorije, E.
    van Benthem, J.
    Woutersen, R.
    van der Laan, J. W.
    Luijten, M.
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS, 2018, 59 : 108 - 108
  • [44] Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens. Approaches to Their Risk Assessment
    J.A.CASTRO.M.I.DIAZGOMEZ
    G.D.CASTRO
    Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 1993, (01) : 71 - 80
  • [45] INFLUENCE OF SOIL HALF-LIFE ON RISK ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENS
    BORGERT, CJ
    ROBERTS, SM
    HARRISON, RD
    JAMES, RC
    REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 1995, 22 (02) : 143 - 151
  • [46] THE NEED FOR BIOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN REACHING DECISIONS ABOUT CARCINOGENS
    CLAYSON, DB
    JANSEN, JD
    MUTATION RESEARCH, 1987, 185 (03): : 243 - 269
  • [47] Risk assessment of peak exposure to genotoxic carcinogens: a pragmatic approach
    Bos, PMJ
    Baars, BJ
    van Raaij, MTM
    TOXICOLOGY LETTERS, 2004, 151 (01) : 43 - 50
  • [48] Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?
    Braakhuis, Hedwig M.
    Slob, Wout
    Olthof, Evelyn D.
    Wolterink, Gerrit
    Zwart, Edwin P.
    Gremmer, Eric R.
    Rorije, Emiel
    van Benthem, Jan
    Woutersen, Ruud
    van der Laan, Jan Willem
    Luijten, Mirjam
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY, 2018, 48 (06) : 500 - 511
  • [50] Risk assessment of peak exposure to genotoxic carcinogens: Summary of a report
    Verhagen, H
    Feron, VJ
    vanVliet, PW
    HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 1996, 2 (02): : 275 - 276