Zero tolerances in food and animal feed-Are there any scientific alternatives?. A European point of view on an international controversy

Toxicology Letters

Volumn 175, Issue 1-3, 2007, Pages 118-135

  Heberer, Thomas ^a   Lahrssen Wiederholt, Monika ^a   Schafft, Helmut ^a   Abraham, Klaus ^a   Pzyrembel, Hildegard ^a   Henning, Klaus Juergen ^a   Schauzu, Marianna ^a   Braeunig, Juliane ^a   Goetz, Mario ^a   Niemann, Lars ^a   Gundert Remy, Ursula ^a   Luch, Andreas ^a   Appel, Bernd ^a   Banasiak, Ursula ^a   Böl, Gaby Fleur ^a   Lampen, Alfonso ^a   Wittkowski, Reiner ^a   Hensel, Andreas ^a  

^a FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contaminants; Hormesis; Margin of exposure (MOE); Residues; Risk assessment; Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC concept)

Indexed keywords

FOOD ADDITIVE;

ARTICLE; FOOD ANALYSIS; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD INTAKE; FOOD QUALITY; FOOD SAFETY; HAZARD RATIO; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMAL FEED; EUROPEAN UNION; FOOD; FOOD ADDITIVES; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD MICROBIOLOGY; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; LEGISLATION, FOOD; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 36248982732     PISSN: 03784274     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), 2003a. Semicarbazid als Kontaminante in glasverpackten Lebensmitteln. Vorläufige Bewertung des BfR vom 31. Juli 2003. Available on-line at http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/208/semicarbazid_als_kontaminante_in_glasverpa ckten_lebensmitteln.pdf.
2. BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), 2003b. Semicarbazide in foods. Supplementary opinion of BfR of 15 October 2003. Available online at. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/245/semicarbazide_in_foods.pdf.
3. BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), 2005. Risk assessment of genotoxic and carcinogenic substances to be harmonized in the EU BfR Expert Opinion No. 029/2005 of 18 May 2005. Available online at http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/245/risk_assessment_of_genotoxic_and_carcinoge nic_substances_to_be_harmonised_in_the_eu.pdf.
4. Calabrese E.J., and Baldwin L.A. Hormesis as a biological hypothesis. Environ. Health Perspect. 106 (1998) 357-362
5. Calabrese E.J., and Baldwin L.A. Hormesis: a generalizable and unifying hypothesis. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 31 (2001) 353-424
6. Calabrese E.J., and Baldwin L.A. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 71 (2003) 246-250
7. Calabrese E.J., and Cook R.R. Hormesis: how it could affect the risk assessment process. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 24 (2005) 265-270
8. Cook R., and Calabrese E. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ. Health Perspect. 114 (2006) 1631-1635
9. Cook R., and Calabrese E. Hormesis is biology, not religion. Environ. Health Perspect. 114 (2006) A688
10. Crump K. Evaluating the evidence for hormesis: a statistical perspective. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 31 (2001) 669-679
11. Daughton C.G., and Ternes T.A. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change?. Environ. Health Perspect. 107 (1999) 907-938
12. Davies J., Spiegelman G., and Yim G. The world of subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9 (2006) 445-453
13. European Commission (EC), 2007. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 2377/90, presented by the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 17/04/2007, COM (2007) 194 final, 2007/0064 (COD). Internet: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0194en01.pd f.
14. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2005a. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a harmonised approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. (Request No. EFSA-Q-2004-020) adopted on 18 October 2005. The EFSA Journal 282, 1-31, Available on-line at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/sc_op_ej282_gentox_en3 .pdf.
15. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2005b. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food on a request from the commission related to semicarbazide in food question number EFSA-2003-235. The EFSA Journal 219, 1-36. Available on-line at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/afc/afc_opinions/100 5.Par.0001.File.dat/afc_op_ej219_semicarbazide_en2.pdf.
16. European Union (EU) SANCO/221/2000-rev. 10, 2003. Guidance Document on the Assessment of the Relevance of Metabolites in Ground Water of Substances Regulated under Council Directive 91/414/EEC.
17. Gatermann R., Hoenicke K., and Mandix M. Formation of semicarbazide (SEM) from natural compounds in food by heat treatment. Czech. J. Food Sci. 22 (2004) 353-354
18. Hanekamp J.C., Frapporti G., and Olieman K. Chloramphenicol, food safety and precautionary thinking in Europe. Environ. Liability 6 (2003) 209-221
19. Hanekamp J.C., and Kwakman J. Beyond zero tolerance: a new approach to food safety and residues of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin. Environ. Liability 1 (2004) 33-39
20. Hanekamp J.C. Veterinary residues and new European legislation: a new hope?. Environ. Liability 2 (2005) 52-55
21. Heberer Th. Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. Toxicol. Lett. 131 (2002) 5-17
22. Hoenicke K., and Gatermann K. How can zero tolerances be controlled? The case study of Nitrofurans. Accred. Qual. Assur. 11 (2006) 29-32
23. Hoenicke K., Gatermann R., Hartig L., Mandix M., and Otte S. Formation of semicarbazide (SEM) in food by hypochlorite treatment: is SEM a specific marker for nitrofurazone abuse?. Food Addit. Contam. 21 (2004) 526-537
24. Jayjock M.A. How much is enough to accept hormesis as the default? or At what point, if ever, could/should hormesis be employed as the principal dose-response default assumption in risk assessment?. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 24 (2005) 245-247
25. Kitchin K.T., and Drane J.W. A critique of the use of hormesis in risk assessment. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 24 (2005) 249-253
26. Kroes R., Renwick A.G., Cheeseman M., Kleiner J., Mangelsdorf I., Piersma A., Schilter B., Schlatter J., van Schothorst F., Vos J.G., and Wuertzen G. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (2004) 65-83
27. Kroes R., Kleiner J., and Renwick A. The threshold of toxicological concern concept in risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 86 (2005) 226-230
28. Michalski B., Stein B., Niemann L., Pfeil R., and Fischer R. Beurteilung der Relevanz von Metaboliten im Grundwasser im Rahmen des nationalen Zulassungsverfahrens für Pflanzenschutzmittel. Nachrichtenbl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzd. 56 (2004) 53-59
29. Saari L., and Peltonen K. Novel source of semicarbazide: levels of semicarbazide in cooked crayfish samples determined by LC/MS/MS. Food Addit. Contam. 21 (2004) 825-832
30. Thayer K.A., Melnick R., Burns K., Davis D., and Huff J. Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (2005) 1271-1276
31. Thayer K., Melnick R., Huff J., Burns K., and Davis D. Hormesis: a new religion?. Environ. Health Perspect. 114 (2006) A632-A633
32. Zapponi G., and Marcello I. Low-dose risk, hormesis, analogical and logical thinking. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1076 (2006) 839-857