The use of dose-response data in a margin of exposure approach to carcinogenic risk assessment for genotoxic chemicals in food

Mutagenesis

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 329-331

  Benford, Diane J ^a  

^a FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL COMPOUND; CARCINOGEN; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

CARCINOGENICITY; DOSE RESPONSE; FOOD INDUSTRY; GENETIC TOXICOLOGY; GENOTOXICITY; GENOTOXICITY ASSAY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DIETARY EXPOSURE; FEMALE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; MALE; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; DIETARY EXPOSURE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MUTAGENS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 84966508425     PISSN: 02678357     EISSN: 14643804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gev064     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2005) 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. EFSA Journal, 282, 1-31. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/282 (accessed August 17, 2015).
2. Barlow, S., Renwick, A. G., Kleiner, J., et al. (2006) Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic-Report of an international conference organised by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem. Toxicol., 44, 1636-1650.
3. Benford D., Bolger P. M., Carthew P., et al. (2010) Application of the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem. Toxicol., 48, S2-24.
4. COC (Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment). (2012) Risk characterisation methods Ref: COC/G 06-Version 1.0. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cancer-risk-characterisation-methods (accessed August 17, 2015).
5. MacGregor J. T., Frötschl R., White P. A., et al. (2015) IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PODs). Mutat. Res.: Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 783, 55-65 [Epub October 13, 2014], doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.09.011.
6. Edler L., Hart A., Greaves P., Carthew P., Coulet M., Boobis A., Williams G. M., Smith B. (2014) Selection of appropriate tumour data sets for Benchmark Dose Modelling (BMD) and derivation of a Margin of Exposure (MoE) for substances that are genotoxic and carcinogenic: considerations of biological releVance of tumour type, data quality and uncertainty assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol., 70, 264-289.
7. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2009) Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 1150, 1-72.
8. Johnson G. E., Soeteman-Hernández L. G., Gollapudi B. B., et al. (2014) Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 55, 609-623.
9. Hernandez L. G., Van Benthem J., Slob W. (2012) Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test. RIVM report 340700007/2012. Bilthoven. http://www.rivm.nl/en/Documents-and-publications/Scientific/Reports/2013/april/Estimating-the-carcinogenic-potency-of-chemicals-from-the-in-vivo-micronucleus-test (accessed August 17, 2015).
10. MacGregor J. T., Frötschl R., White P. A., et al. (2015) IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment II. Use of point-ofdeparture (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk. Mutat. Res.: Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 783, 55-65 [Epub October 13, 2014], doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.09.011.