Alessandro Fiocchi, Lamia Dahdah, Carla Riccardi, Oscar Mazzina, Vincenzo Fierro
{"title":"交叉反应食品的预先标签:油菜籽案例。","authors":"Alessandro Fiocchi, Lamia Dahdah, Carla Riccardi, Oscar Mazzina, Vincenzo Fierro","doi":"10.1186/s40733-016-0028-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Food allergic individuals are exposed to unnecessary dietary restrictions due to precautionary food allergy labelling (PFAL). Two forms of PFAL exist: type I identifies the possible presence of allergenic contaminaion in foods ('may content…'), type II indicates as potentially dangerous ingredients or contaminants that do no belong to official list of food allergens. PFAL type II is based on the fear of cross-reactivity with foods belonging to that list. PFAL type II is less known, but may be tempting for the legal offices of food companies, for clinicians in a 'defensive medicine' key, and even for legislators. We identify here a case of PFAL type II, allergy to rapeseed (belonging to the family of <i>Brassicaceae</i>). Increasingly used for their nutritional and nutraceutic value in asthma prevention, rapeseed has been indicated by regulatory authorities in Canada and Europe as potential cross-reactor with mustard. In this review, we provide the elements for a risk assessment of cross-reactivity of rapeseed/mustard allergy in the general population both clinically and from the point of view of the molecular allergy. Three findings emerge: 1. Allergic reactions to rapeseed are exceptional 2. The allergens identified in rapeseed and mustard are similar, but not identical 3. Reactions to rapeseed have never been described in mustard-allergic patients. On the ground of existing evidence, a precautionary labeling for rapeseed as potentially dangerous for patients allergic to mustard is not justified. In the interest of patients with multiple food allergy, PFAL type II must be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":8572,"journal":{"name":"Asthma research and practice","volume":"2 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5142398/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preacutionary labelling of cross-reactive foods: The case of rapeseed.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Fiocchi, Lamia Dahdah, Carla Riccardi, Oscar Mazzina, Vincenzo Fierro\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40733-016-0028-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Food allergic individuals are exposed to unnecessary dietary restrictions due to precautionary food allergy labelling (PFAL). Two forms of PFAL exist: type I identifies the possible presence of allergenic contaminaion in foods ('may content…'), type II indicates as potentially dangerous ingredients or contaminants that do no belong to official list of food allergens. PFAL type II is based on the fear of cross-reactivity with foods belonging to that list. PFAL type II is less known, but may be tempting for the legal offices of food companies, for clinicians in a 'defensive medicine' key, and even for legislators. We identify here a case of PFAL type II, allergy to rapeseed (belonging to the family of <i>Brassicaceae</i>). Increasingly used for their nutritional and nutraceutic value in asthma prevention, rapeseed has been indicated by regulatory authorities in Canada and Europe as potential cross-reactor with mustard. In this review, we provide the elements for a risk assessment of cross-reactivity of rapeseed/mustard allergy in the general population both clinically and from the point of view of the molecular allergy. Three findings emerge: 1. Allergic reactions to rapeseed are exceptional 2. The allergens identified in rapeseed and mustard are similar, but not identical 3. Reactions to rapeseed have never been described in mustard-allergic patients. On the ground of existing evidence, a precautionary labeling for rapeseed as potentially dangerous for patients allergic to mustard is not justified. In the interest of patients with multiple food allergy, PFAL type II must be avoided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asthma research and practice\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5142398/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asthma research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40733-016-0028-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asthma research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40733-016-0028-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由于预防性食物过敏标签(PFAL)的存在,食物过敏者面临着不必要的饮食限制。PFAL 有两种形式:第一种是标明食品中可能含有过敏原污染物("可能含有......"),第二种是标明不属于官方食品过敏原清单的潜在危险成分或污染物。PFAL II 型的依据是担心与属于该清单的食品发生交叉反应。PFAL II 型鲜为人知,但对食品公司的法律办公室、"防御性医学 "的临床医生甚至立法者来说都很有诱惑力。我们在这里发现了一个 PFAL II 型病例,即对油菜籽(属于十字花科)过敏。油菜籽在预防哮喘方面具有越来越高的营养和保健价值,加拿大和欧洲的监管机构已指出油菜籽可能与芥末发生交叉反应。在这篇综述中,我们从临床和分子过敏的角度提供了对普通人群中油菜籽/芥末过敏交叉反应进行风险评估的要素。我们得出了三个结论:1.对油菜籽的过敏反应是罕见的 2.油菜籽中发现的过敏原与其他过敏原不同。2. 油菜籽和芥末中的过敏原相似,但不完全相同 3.芥末过敏患者从未出现过对油菜籽的过敏反应。根据现有证据,将油菜籽作为对芥末过敏的患者有潜在危险的预防标签是不合理的。为了多重食物过敏患者的利益,必须避免食用 PFAL II 型。
Preacutionary labelling of cross-reactive foods: The case of rapeseed.
Food allergic individuals are exposed to unnecessary dietary restrictions due to precautionary food allergy labelling (PFAL). Two forms of PFAL exist: type I identifies the possible presence of allergenic contaminaion in foods ('may content…'), type II indicates as potentially dangerous ingredients or contaminants that do no belong to official list of food allergens. PFAL type II is based on the fear of cross-reactivity with foods belonging to that list. PFAL type II is less known, but may be tempting for the legal offices of food companies, for clinicians in a 'defensive medicine' key, and even for legislators. We identify here a case of PFAL type II, allergy to rapeseed (belonging to the family of Brassicaceae). Increasingly used for their nutritional and nutraceutic value in asthma prevention, rapeseed has been indicated by regulatory authorities in Canada and Europe as potential cross-reactor with mustard. In this review, we provide the elements for a risk assessment of cross-reactivity of rapeseed/mustard allergy in the general population both clinically and from the point of view of the molecular allergy. Three findings emerge: 1. Allergic reactions to rapeseed are exceptional 2. The allergens identified in rapeseed and mustard are similar, but not identical 3. Reactions to rapeseed have never been described in mustard-allergic patients. On the ground of existing evidence, a precautionary labeling for rapeseed as potentially dangerous for patients allergic to mustard is not justified. In the interest of patients with multiple food allergy, PFAL type II must be avoided.
期刊介绍:
Asthma Research and Practice is the official publication of Interasma and publishes cutting edge basic, clinical and translational research in addition to hot topic reviews and debate articles relevant to asthma and related disorders (such as rhinitis, COPD overlapping syndrome, sinusitis). The journal has a specialized section which focusses on pediatric asthma research. Asthma Research and Practice aims to serve as an international platform for the dissemination of research of interest to pulmonologists, allergologists, primary care physicians and family doctors, ENTs and other health care providers interested in asthma, its mechanisms and comorbidities.