This article presents an overview of the consumption rates and nutritional benefits of eating fish. While its specific contributions to the nutritional quality of the diet depend upon the amount of fish (versus other foods) and species (fatty versus lean) consumed, it is most valued as a ‘‘protein food.’’ The Biological Value and Protein Efficiency Ratio, indices of the amino acid profile and ability to support growth, are higher for fish than for beef, pork, chicken, and milk proteins. In addition, the types and proportions of dietary fats are generally more ‘‘heart healthy’’ than the fats found in other protein foods. Approximately 50% of the fatty acids in lean fish (e.g., walleye and yellow perch) and 25% in fattier fish (e.g., channel catfish and rainbow trout) are polyunsaturated fatty acids. The amount of saturated fatty acids, associated with increased risk of heart disease, tends to be relatively constant across fish species, at about 25% (Sabry, 1990). In contrast, the polyunsaturated and saturated fatty acids in beef are 4–10% and 40–45%, respectively, of the total fatty acids present. Fish also is valued as a source of omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, very longchain polyunsaturated fatty acids that are critical for the development of the brain and retina and that may be protective of some chronic diseases. Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) (20:5 n-3) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) (22:6 n-3), which account for approximately 90% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish species from the North Atlantic and North Pacific (Sabry, 1990), are absent or present in much lower amounts in other foods. The amount of cholesterol found in fish is comparable to levels in beef, pork, and
{"title":"Nutritional Aspects of Fish Compared with Other Protein Sources","authors":"J. Sheeshka, E. Murkin","doi":"10.1080/08865140215065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140215065","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an overview of the consumption rates and nutritional benefits of eating fish. While its specific contributions to the nutritional quality of the diet depend upon the amount of fish (versus other foods) and species (fatty versus lean) consumed, it is most valued as a ‘‘protein food.’’ The Biological Value and Protein Efficiency Ratio, indices of the amino acid profile and ability to support growth, are higher for fish than for beef, pork, chicken, and milk proteins. In addition, the types and proportions of dietary fats are generally more ‘‘heart healthy’’ than the fats found in other protein foods. Approximately 50% of the fatty acids in lean fish (e.g., walleye and yellow perch) and 25% in fattier fish (e.g., channel catfish and rainbow trout) are polyunsaturated fatty acids. The amount of saturated fatty acids, associated with increased risk of heart disease, tends to be relatively constant across fish species, at about 25% (Sabry, 1990). In contrast, the polyunsaturated and saturated fatty acids in beef are 4–10% and 40–45%, respectively, of the total fatty acids present. Fish also is valued as a source of omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, very longchain polyunsaturated fatty acids that are critical for the development of the brain and retina and that may be protective of some chronic diseases. Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) (20:5 n-3) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) (22:6 n-3), which account for approximately 90% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish species from the North Atlantic and North Pacific (Sabry, 1990), are absent or present in much lower amounts in other foods. The amount of cholesterol found in fish is comparable to levels in beef, pork, and","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117354287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Toxic chemicals from point sources such as industrial or municipal discharges, and from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff, have contaminated some surface waters and their sediments across the United States (U.S. EPA, 1992a,b; Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990; Schmitt et al., 1990). In addition, naturally occurring chemicals such as mercury also can contaminate waters and sediments. Many of these pollutants concentrate in fish tissues by accumulating in fat or binding to muscle. These contaminants found in fish may pose health risks to people eating the fish. Those eating higher than average amounts of fish, such as sport and subsistence anglers, are at a potential greater risk from eating contaminated fish than the general population. In an effort to protect public health, state, local, and federal agencies and tribes issue fish consumption advisories, when necessary, that usually recommend limits on the number of fish meals that can be safely consumed within a specified time period (U.S. EPA, 1997b; Reinert et al., 1996; Dourson and Clark, 1990). These advisories are often issued for certain species of fish from specific bodies of water, to address local contamination.
工业或城市排放等点源和农业径流等非点源的有毒化学品污染了美国各地的一些地表水及其沉积物(美国环境保护署，1992年a,b;Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990;Schmitt et al.， 1990)。此外，汞等自然产生的化学物质也会污染水和沉积物。这些污染物中的许多通过积聚在脂肪中或与肌肉结合而集中在鱼类组织中。在鱼类中发现的这些污染物可能对食用鱼类的人构成健康风险。那些吃鱼量高于平均水平的人，如运动垂钓者和以生计为生的垂钓者，吃受污染的鱼的潜在风险比一般人群更大。为了保护公众健康，州、地方和联邦机构和部落在必要时发布鱼类消费咨询，通常建议在特定时间段内可以安全食用的鱼粉数量限制(美国环保署，1997b;Reinert et al.， 1996;Dourson and Clark, 1990)。这些警告通常针对特定水域的某些鱼类，以解决当地的污染问题。
{"title":"Introduction--Comparative Dietary Risk: Balance the Risk and Benefits of Fish Consumption","authors":"J. Patterson","doi":"10.1080/08865140215062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140215062","url":null,"abstract":"Toxic chemicals from point sources such as industrial or municipal discharges, and from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff, have contaminated some surface waters and their sediments across the United States (U.S. EPA, 1992a,b; Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990; Schmitt et al., 1990). In addition, naturally occurring chemicals such as mercury also can contaminate waters and sediments. Many of these pollutants concentrate in fish tissues by accumulating in fat or binding to muscle. These contaminants found in fish may pose health risks to people eating the fish. Those eating higher than average amounts of fish, such as sport and subsistence anglers, are at a potential greater risk from eating contaminated fish than the general population. In an effort to protect public health, state, local, and federal agencies and tribes issue fish consumption advisories, when necessary, that usually recommend limits on the number of fish meals that can be safely consumed within a specified time period (U.S. EPA, 1997b; Reinert et al., 1996; Dourson and Clark, 1990). These advisories are often issued for certain species of fish from specific bodies of water, to address local contamination.","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125905006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing and quantifying the potential risks to human health from eating contaminated fish is essential to evaluating both the target risks from consuming contaminated fish and the countervailing risks that may result from consumers following fish advisory advice. Adverse health effects from contaminants in fish range widely and may include cancer, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and other systemic effects. The occurrence and severity of the effects depend upon the amount to which a person is exposed and characteristics of the individual, including genetic makeup and life stage. Traditionally, risk assessors have calculated estimates of an individual or population’s risk for getting cancer from exposure to chemicals, whereas for noncancer endpoints, a reference dose or concentration (for contaminants in air) is identified at which one would not expect to see adverse effects in a population (including sensitive subgroups). Cancer slope factors are estimates of risk derived from dose-response data from laboratory animal or human
{"title":"Health Risks from Eating Contaminated Fish","authors":"M. Dourson, P. Price, J. Unrine","doi":"10.1080/08865140215061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140215061","url":null,"abstract":"Assessing and quantifying the potential risks to human health from eating contaminated fish is essential to evaluating both the target risks from consuming contaminated fish and the countervailing risks that may result from consumers following fish advisory advice. Adverse health effects from contaminants in fish range widely and may include cancer, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and other systemic effects. The occurrence and severity of the effects depend upon the amount to which a person is exposed and characteristics of the individual, including genetic makeup and life stage. Traditionally, risk assessors have calculated estimates of an individual or population’s risk for getting cancer from exposure to chemicals, whereas for noncancer endpoints, a reference dose or concentration (for contaminants in air) is identified at which one would not expect to see adverse effects in a population (including sensitive subgroups). Cancer slope factors are estimates of risk derived from dose-response data from laboratory animal or human","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116629264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. D. Anderson, M. Dourson, J. Unrine, J. Sheeshka, E. Murkin, Jerry Stober
This article presents an initial Comparative Dietary Risk Framework (referred to as the framework) that combines and compares the potential benefits and potential risks associated with eating contaminated fish. The results of this framework are preliminary, due to the multifactorial analysis involved. Thus, while the framework is a quantitative representation of the net risk (or benefit) associated with eating contaminated fish, it should be used to inform public health officials about the benefits and risk of eating contaminated fish and to investigate and compare various alternative fish protein sources, including perhaps other
{"title":"Framework and Case Studies","authors":"P. D. Anderson, M. Dourson, J. Unrine, J. Sheeshka, E. Murkin, Jerry Stober","doi":"10.1080/08865140215066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140215066","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an initial Comparative Dietary Risk Framework (referred to as the framework) that combines and compares the potential benefits and potential risks associated with eating contaminated fish. The results of this framework are preliminary, due to the multifactorial analysis involved. Thus, while the framework is a quantitative representation of the net risk (or benefit) associated with eating contaminated fish, it should be used to inform public health officials about the benefits and risk of eating contaminated fish and to investigate and compare various alternative fish protein sources, including perhaps other","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125721603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Bannon, R. Goodman, J. Leach, E. Rice, R. Fuchs, J. Astwood
(2002). Digestive Stability in the Context of Assessing the Potential Allergenicity of Food Proteins. Comments on Toxicology: Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 271-285.
{"title":"Digestive Stability in the Context of Assessing the Potential Allergenicity of Food Proteins","authors":"G. Bannon, R. Goodman, J. Leach, E. Rice, R. Fuchs, J. Astwood","doi":"10.1080/08865140214384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214384","url":null,"abstract":"(2002). Digestive Stability in the Context of Assessing the Potential Allergenicity of Food Proteins. Comments on Toxicology: Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 271-285.","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122977778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Goodman, A. Silvanovich, R. Hileman, G. Bannon, E. Rice, J. Astwood
Agricultural crops have been genetically improved through centuries of breeding to select phenotypes that are controlled by combinations of genes, typically with undefined mutations, which produce the desired traits. Changes in the plant characteristics (e.g., disease resistance, insect resistance, food quality) typically have been slow, except when partial or full genomes have been combined. This combination as is hypothesized to have occurred thousands of years ago in the generation of modern hexaploid wheat as a hybrid cross of tetraploid and diploid progenitors (1). Such crosses result in the combination of hundreds to thousands of different proteins in a single food. In contrast, modern tools of biotechnology have allowed the introduction of one or a few new genes and resulting proteins into crop varieties that are carefully selected and studied for safety and performance before being allowed into commercial production (2, 3). As methods to introduce desired traits in plants have improved, so too has the public
{"title":"Bioinformatic Methods for Identifying Known or Potential Allergens in the Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops","authors":"R. Goodman, A. Silvanovich, R. Hileman, G. Bannon, E. Rice, J. Astwood","doi":"10.1080/08865140214386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214386","url":null,"abstract":"Agricultural crops have been genetically improved through centuries of breeding to select phenotypes that are controlled by combinations of genes, typically with undefined mutations, which produce the desired traits. Changes in the plant characteristics (e.g., disease resistance, insect resistance, food quality) typically have been slow, except when partial or full genomes have been combined. This combination as is hypothesized to have occurred thousands of years ago in the generation of modern hexaploid wheat as a hybrid cross of tetraploid and diploid progenitors (1). Such crosses result in the combination of hundreds to thousands of different proteins in a single food. In contrast, modern tools of biotechnology have allowed the introduction of one or a few new genes and resulting proteins into crop varieties that are carefully selected and studied for safety and performance before being allowed into commercial production (2, 3). As methods to introduce desired traits in plants have improved, so too has the public","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132275254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Food allergy is a common, important, and probably increasing health problem that currently affects between 1% and 2% of adults and approximately 5% of children in North America and Europe (1). With an increasing interest in the development of novel foods, including those derived from genetically modified crops, some debate has developed about possible sources of adverse health effects and the need for appropriate safety assessment strategies (2–8). A major focus of attention has been the potential for allergenicity, and particularly consideration of whether novel proteins expressed in transgenic plants will be able to induce de novo sensitization and=or elicit allergic reactions in those who are already sensitized (9–14). The need for accurate assessments of the allergenic potential of novel proteins provides toxicologists with some significant, but nevertheless intriguing, challenges. One of the major issues is the basis for differences between proteins with respect to sensitization potential. Although something is known of the physicochemical features that characterize chemical allergens, the properties that confer on proteins the ability to cause allergic sensitization are less well defined (15). Clearly, a more detailed appreciation of the molecular, structural, and functional requirements for the effective induction of sensitization will facilitate new approaches to safety assessment in the future. In the meantime, however, a battery of experimental methods are available that collectively provide a sound basis for the identification and characterization of proteins that have an inherent potential to cause sensitization. The majority of these were included in a decision tree approach to allergenicity assessment that was recommended by a task force of the International Food Biotechnology Council and the Allergy and Immunology Institute of the International Life Sciences Institute (16). This represented the first coherent and systematic strategy for evaluating the sensitizing potential of novel
{"title":"Food Allergy Safety Assessment: An Introduction","authors":"I. Kimber, R. Dearman","doi":"10.1080/08865140214380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214380","url":null,"abstract":"Food allergy is a common, important, and probably increasing health problem that currently affects between 1% and 2% of adults and approximately 5% of children in North America and Europe (1). With an increasing interest in the development of novel foods, including those derived from genetically modified crops, some debate has developed about possible sources of adverse health effects and the need for appropriate safety assessment strategies (2–8). A major focus of attention has been the potential for allergenicity, and particularly consideration of whether novel proteins expressed in transgenic plants will be able to induce de novo sensitization and=or elicit allergic reactions in those who are already sensitized (9–14). The need for accurate assessments of the allergenic potential of novel proteins provides toxicologists with some significant, but nevertheless intriguing, challenges. One of the major issues is the basis for differences between proteins with respect to sensitization potential. Although something is known of the physicochemical features that characterize chemical allergens, the properties that confer on proteins the ability to cause allergic sensitization are less well defined (15). Clearly, a more detailed appreciation of the molecular, structural, and functional requirements for the effective induction of sensitization will facilitate new approaches to safety assessment in the future. In the meantime, however, a battery of experimental methods are available that collectively provide a sound basis for the identification and characterization of proteins that have an inherent potential to cause sensitization. The majority of these were included in a decision tree approach to allergenicity assessment that was recommended by a task force of the International Food Biotechnology Council and the Allergy and Immunology Institute of the International Life Sciences Institute (16). This represented the first coherent and systematic strategy for evaluating the sensitizing potential of novel","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122730978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As described in previous articles, there is a need to identify and characterize the allergenic potential of novel proteins introduced into genetically modified crop plants. In 1996, a collaboration between the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Allergy and Immunology Institute and the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC) outlined the first systematic approach for such allergenicity testing (1). A hierarchical strategy was proposed that incorporated consideration of the serological identity of the protein of interest with known human allergens; examination of amino acid homology with, and=or structural similarity to, allergenic proteins; and measurement of the stability (digestibility) of the protein in a simulated gastric fluid (1–3). It was recognized at the time that there were no suitable animal models that could be used in concert with the approaches summarized above. There has, however, been rapid progress in this area over the past few years, and several methods are now under development based upon measurement of serological responses induced in rats (see Knippels and Penninks, this issue) or in mice, the subject of this article. This progress has been acknowledged recently in a re-evaluation of the 1996 ILSI=IFBC decision tree reported by the joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (FAO=WHO) Expert Consultative Committee on the Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology (4), which concluded that there is sufficient evidence that some animal models are likely to provide valuable information regarding the potential allergenicity of foods.
{"title":"Protein Allergenicity: Mouse Models","authors":"R. Dearman, I. Kimber, D. Basketter","doi":"10.1080/08865140214385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214385","url":null,"abstract":"As described in previous articles, there is a need to identify and characterize the allergenic potential of novel proteins introduced into genetically modified crop plants. In 1996, a collaboration between the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Allergy and Immunology Institute and the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC) outlined the first systematic approach for such allergenicity testing (1). A hierarchical strategy was proposed that incorporated consideration of the serological identity of the protein of interest with known human allergens; examination of amino acid homology with, and=or structural similarity to, allergenic proteins; and measurement of the stability (digestibility) of the protein in a simulated gastric fluid (1–3). It was recognized at the time that there were no suitable animal models that could be used in concert with the approaches summarized above. There has, however, been rapid progress in this area over the past few years, and several methods are now under development based upon measurement of serological responses induced in rats (see Knippels and Penninks, this issue) or in mice, the subject of this article. This progress has been acknowledged recently in a re-evaluation of the 1996 ILSI=IFBC decision tree reported by the joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (FAO=WHO) Expert Consultative Committee on the Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology (4), which concluded that there is sufficient evidence that some animal models are likely to provide valuable information regarding the potential allergenicity of foods.","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127647856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Food allergy is an important health problem and an issue of growing relevance for toxicology. The characteristics of food allergy have been described elsewhere in this volume, and in other recent review articles (1, 2). Nevertheless, it is appropriate here to place the relevant toxicological imperatives in the context of clinical and immunological aspects of food allergy. An important consideration is one of classification. By definition, allergic diseases are driven by specific immune responses. This distinguishes food allergy from other forms of food intolerance. One working classification is to regard food allergy as one type of food intolerance; the definition of the latter being a reproducible adverse reaction to a specific food or food component that results from an allergic response (food allergy), or is due to other mechanisms including pharmacological effects and enzyme deficiencies (3). In most instances, food allergy is associated with specific IgE antibody responses, although it in some cases other immunological mechanisms may play a predominant role. The best example is gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or celiac disease, that is characterized by a cell-mediated immune response (3). In addition, food allergic reactions are sometimes manifest in the absence of detectable IgE antibody, one interpretation being that in such instances other immune mechanisms are causing the symptoms. However, some care is needed in drawing this conclusion. Confirmation that suspected food allergy is mediated by IgE antibody derives from measurement of specific IgE in serum and=or skin prick test reactivity; both of which assessments require that detectable levels of IgE antibody are available systemically. However, the results of recent investigations suggest that localized IgE responses (in the gastrointestinal [GI] tract) also may elicit allergic reactions. Patients with
{"title":"Immunotoxicological Aspects of Food Allergy","authors":"I. Kimber, C. Betts, R. Dearman","doi":"10.1080/08865140214382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214382","url":null,"abstract":"Food allergy is an important health problem and an issue of growing relevance for toxicology. The characteristics of food allergy have been described elsewhere in this volume, and in other recent review articles (1, 2). Nevertheless, it is appropriate here to place the relevant toxicological imperatives in the context of clinical and immunological aspects of food allergy. An important consideration is one of classification. By definition, allergic diseases are driven by specific immune responses. This distinguishes food allergy from other forms of food intolerance. One working classification is to regard food allergy as one type of food intolerance; the definition of the latter being a reproducible adverse reaction to a specific food or food component that results from an allergic response (food allergy), or is due to other mechanisms including pharmacological effects and enzyme deficiencies (3). In most instances, food allergy is associated with specific IgE antibody responses, although it in some cases other immunological mechanisms may play a predominant role. The best example is gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or celiac disease, that is characterized by a cell-mediated immune response (3). In addition, food allergic reactions are sometimes manifest in the absence of detectable IgE antibody, one interpretation being that in such instances other immune mechanisms are causing the symptoms. However, some care is needed in drawing this conclusion. Confirmation that suspected food allergy is mediated by IgE antibody derives from measurement of specific IgE in serum and=or skin prick test reactivity; both of which assessments require that detectable levels of IgE antibody are available systemically. However, the results of recent investigations suggest that localized IgE responses (in the gastrointestinal [GI] tract) also may elicit allergic reactions. Patients with","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114829325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The possibilities of modern biotechnology have resulted in the introduction of new generations of food and food ingredients and this process is expected to continue further in the near future. In particular, the development and market introduction of genetically engineered food crops has gained much attention in the past few years. For these novel foods, a toxicological evaluation and risk assessment are in most cases major items in their safety evaluation. In food, some proteins (i.e., proteins from peanut, egg-white, tree nuts, fish, etc.) are responsible for the development of food allergy. The potential allergenicity of genetically engineered crops, usually containing novel proteins from nonfood origins, has become an important issue in safety evaluation. There is, however, no universal, reliable, and relevant single test to evaluate the allergenic potency of food products and a case-by-case approach is suggested (1). The best known allergy approach, in which the source of the gene plays a central role, was developed jointly by the International Biotechnology Council and the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Allergy and Immunology Institute and published in 1996 (2). This so-called IFBC=ILSI decision tree recommended, based on the data available then, that when transgenic proteins were derived from nonfood sources a careful stepwise process should be followed. Attention should be given to several factors, including amino acid sequence homology and various physicochemical properties such as heat and digestive stability of the protein. For transgenic products derived from known allergenic foods several in vitro and in vivo test are available, using allergic patients and=or their serum, that will most likely result in a conclusive assessment of its potential allergenicity. Unfortunately,
{"title":"Protein Allergenicity: Rat Model","authors":"L. Knippels, A. Penninks","doi":"10.1080/08865140214381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08865140214381","url":null,"abstract":"The possibilities of modern biotechnology have resulted in the introduction of new generations of food and food ingredients and this process is expected to continue further in the near future. In particular, the development and market introduction of genetically engineered food crops has gained much attention in the past few years. For these novel foods, a toxicological evaluation and risk assessment are in most cases major items in their safety evaluation. In food, some proteins (i.e., proteins from peanut, egg-white, tree nuts, fish, etc.) are responsible for the development of food allergy. The potential allergenicity of genetically engineered crops, usually containing novel proteins from nonfood origins, has become an important issue in safety evaluation. There is, however, no universal, reliable, and relevant single test to evaluate the allergenic potency of food products and a case-by-case approach is suggested (1). The best known allergy approach, in which the source of the gene plays a central role, was developed jointly by the International Biotechnology Council and the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Allergy and Immunology Institute and published in 1996 (2). This so-called IFBC=ILSI decision tree recommended, based on the data available then, that when transgenic proteins were derived from nonfood sources a careful stepwise process should be followed. Attention should be given to several factors, including amino acid sequence homology and various physicochemical properties such as heat and digestive stability of the protein. For transgenic products derived from known allergenic foods several in vitro and in vivo test are available, using allergic patients and=or their serum, that will most likely result in a conclusive assessment of its potential allergenicity. Unfortunately,","PeriodicalId":402874,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120847863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：