PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Food Additives”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

The application of in vitro data in the derivation of the acceptable daily intake of food additives.

The acceptable daily intake (ADI) for food additives is commonly derived from the NOAEL (no-observed-adverse-effect level) in long-term animal in vivo studies. To derive an ADI a safety or uncertainty factor (commonly 100) is applied to the NOAEL in the most sensitive test species. The 100-fold safety factor is considered to be the product of both species and inter-individual differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Although in vitro data have previously been considered during the risk assessment of food additives, they have generally had no direct influence on the calculation of ADI values. In this review 18 food additives are evaluated for the availability of in vitro toxicity data which might be used for the derivation of a specific data-derived uncertainty factor. For the majority of the food additives reviewed, additional in vitro tests have been conducted which supplement and support the short- and long-term in vivo toxicity studies. However, it was recognized that these in vitro studies could not be used in isolation to derive an ADI; only when sufficient in vivo mechanistic data are available can such information be used in a regulatory context. Additional short-term studies are proposed for the food additives which, if conducted, would provide data that could then be used for the calculation of data-derived uncertainty factors.

Animals↗
PubMed1986

Food additives and contaminants. An update.

Food additives continue to be a source of benefits to the consuming public but there are also perceived risks. Concern for the latter in the last decade has produced a society afflicted with cancer phobia. The intentional additives including sugars, salt, corn syrup, and dextrose make up 90% of the direct additives. These, along with a limited number of familiar items make up a large proportion of the remainder of the additives. Such common ingredients as nitrates and nitrites, solanine, cyanogenetic compounds, arsenic, etc., are unavoidably consumed in the diet and with little if any evidence for public health consequences. Major concern on the part of the public in recent years has been focused on man-made chemicals which are intentionally added to foods to enhance flavors and acceptability, nutrient value, shelf life and increased availability. These include food colors, nonnutritive and low-nutrient sweeteners, (saccharin, cyclamate, aspartame); antioxidants; and nitrites. Contaminants, sometimes incorrectly included in lists of food additives, present the greatest potential threat to public health. Such contaminants as mycotoxins, nitrosamines, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, among others, provide a continuing challenge to our regulatory agencies and to public health authorities. Evidence to date indicate that these responsible for food safety are doing an admirable job, and as a society, our food supply has never been better, or safer, and, as a population, we have never been healthier. Aside from contaminants, major concerns relate to an excess of good food and to obesity. These comments should not be taken to infer that we should relax our concern and surveillance; instead more concern and surveillance should be exerted toward those uncontrolled substances such as natural plant products and alleged natural nutrients, roots, herbs, etc., which are given much credit for positive health effects, without meeting the high standards of our legitimate food industry.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

[Estimation of the intake of food additives--methods applied in the European Union].

Guidelines for estimation of food additives intake were prepared by Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) in 1989. During the period 1994, 1995 three specific directives have been adopted, each of them including an obligation for Member States to introduce systems to monitor the usage and consumption of food additives and to report their findings to the Commission. Recommendations of Commission's experts which should be taken into account for preparing the monitoring system by Member States are based on decision tree, which systematizes proceeding procedures. Above mentioned decision tree might be a tool for elimination of the food additive which intake does not pose a health hazard. ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) plays the essential role in the risk assessment of food additives intake. The food additives, which were not eliminated during the decision tree considerations require detailed revision of the conditions of their use. Poland, as a Candidate Country for EU, after the accession will also be obligated to introduce the system to monitor the usage and consumption of food additives and to report relevant report to the Commission.

Decision Trees↗
PubMed2003

Assessment of food intake input distributions for use in probabilistic exposure assessments of food additives.

A key component of a food chemical exposure assessment using probabilistic analysis is the selection of the most appropriate input distribution to represent exposure variables. The study explored the type of parametric distribution that could be used to model variability in food consumption data likely to be included in a probabilistic exposure assessment of food additives. The goodness-of-fit of a range of continuous distributions to observed data of 22 food categories expressed as average daily intakes among consumers from the North-South Ireland Food Consumption Survey was assessed using the BestFit distribution fitting program. The lognormal distribution was most commonly accepted as a plausible parametric distribution to represent food consumption data when food intakes were expressed as absolute intakes (16/22 foods) and as intakes per kg body weight (18/22 foods). Results from goodness-of-fit tests were accompanied by lognormal probability plots for a number of food categories. The influence on food additive intake of using a lognormal distribution to model food consumption input data was assessed by comparing modelled intake estimates with observed intakes. Results from the present study advise some level of caution about the use of a lognormal distribution as a mode of input for food consumption data in probabilistic food additive exposure assessments and the results highlight the need for further research in this area.

Eating↗
PubMed2000

An analysis of the possibility for health implications of joint actions and interactions between food additives.

The possibility that structurally unrelated food additives could show either joint actions or interactions has been assessed based on their potential to share common sites and mechanisms of action or common pathways of elimination. All food additives approved in the European Union and allocated numerical acceptable daily intake values were studied, initially based on the reports by the FAO-WHO Joint Expert Committee for Food Additives. Target organs were identified based on the effects reported at doses above the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in animal and human studies. The descriptions of the pathological and other changes reported were used to assess whether different additives, sharing the same target organ, would produce a common toxic effect. In all but a very few cases, the possibility of joint actions or interactions could be excluded on scientific grounds. The exceptions were on the liver (curcumin, thiabendazole, propyl gallate, and BHT), the kidney (diphenyl, o-phenylphenol, and ferrocyanide salts), the blood (azorubine and propyl gallate), and the thyroid (erythosine, thiabendazole, and nitrate). Toxicokinetic interactions were considered unlikely because of the low dosages involved, the diverse nature of the routes of metabolism and elimination, and the fact that enzyme induction or inhibition would have influenced selection of the NOAEL. Many of those additives which could not be excluded from showing joint actions or interactions would have low intakes; in some cases they were alternatives for the same application, thereby further lowering the combined intake. In consequence, joint actions or interactions between additives do not represent a significant health concern.

Drug Interactions↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Unusual reactions to food additives].

The most important symptoms caused by food additives are urticaria and angioedema, but rhinitis, asthma and gastrointestinal disturbances are also reported. Only seldom food additives have been shown to induce symptoms in other organs such central nervous system or joints and with a sparse objective evidence. In this study, we report two cases of unusual reactions to food additives (tartrazine and benzoates) involving mainly the central nervous system (headache, migraine, overactivity, concentration and learning difficulties, depression) and joints (arthralgias), confirmed with diet and double blind challenge. The possible pathogenetic mechanisms are also discussed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Assessment of the influence of energy under-reporting on intake estimates of four food additives.

Under-reporting has been identified as an important source of uncertainty in food chemical exposure assessments. The objective of the present study was to assess the influence of under-reporting on food additive intake estimates. Dietary survey data were derived from the North-South Ireland Food Consumption Survey (2001). Data from the Republic of Ireland (n = 958) were used. Energy under-reporters were identified using a ratio of energy intakes to estimated basal metabolic rate. First, food categories (n = 26) included in an assessment of exposure of four food additives were created and patterns of food intakes (i.e. likelihood of consumption, frequency of consumption and reported portion size) between acceptable and under-reporters compared. Second, for each food additive, deterministic intake estimates for the total sample (i.e. acceptable and under-reporters), under-reporters and acceptable reporters were calculated and compared. Differential reporting of the majority of food categories between acceptable and under-reporters was recorded. Under-reporters were less likely to record the consumption of a given food and more likely to under-report the frequency of consumption and portion size compared with acceptable reporters. Food additive intake estimates amongst acceptable reporters were higher than corresponding intake estimates amongst the total sample of reporters and amongst under-reporters. With the exception of one food additive (erythrosine), ratios of upper percentile additive intakes amongst acceptable reporters to corresponding intake estimates amongst the total sample of reporters did not exceed 1.06 when results were expressed as total population or consumer-only intakes. Findings illustrated that energy under-reporting does not materially influence estimates of food additive exposure based on the four food additives studied. However, a number of situations were identified where the under-reporting might exert a more significant impact on resulting exposure estimates.

Bixaceae↗
PubMed1993

Food additives and allergy.

There is ample evidence that food additives of several sorts may precipitate adverse reactions. Some of these have catastrophic potential such as sulfite sensitivity in asthmatic patients. Fortunately, asthmatic responses to a variety of additives are certainly not as prevalent as once feared, and are probably unusual. Restricted diets are of no general benefit in asthmatic patients. In contrast to asthma, urticarial or other cutaneous reactions to food additives are more common. A restricted diet for a few months' duration may be beneficial, although the mechanism through which this is achieved is unclear. Suspected food additive sensitivities are best documented by oral challenges, preferably in a double-blind manner. Challenges in asthmatic patients need to be done with patients continuing on their routine medications to avoid false positives. All care should be taken to titrate the doses and schedule the doses appropriately, since several of these agents could provoke large drops in pulmonary function. With urticarial patients, an adequate baseline of urticarial activity needs to be established before the challenges so that fluctuations in normal activity are not construed as a positive result. Despite a large number of studies evaluating the role of food additives in hyperkinesis, results are not uniform. Evidence does suggest that there is a small subset of primarily younger children in whom additives will impact on behavior. As with asthma and additives, the problem appears to be much smaller than originally postulated.

Food Additives↗
PubMed1986

[Diagnostic procedures in abnormal reactions to foods and food additives].

Allergic and intolerance reactions to food and food additives may occur as a result of antibody-mediated or non-immunological mechanisms. Histories of adverse reactions to food must be confirmed and clarified by means of in-vivo and in-vitro tests. Offending substances and clinical manifestations are enumerated. The predictive value and the diagnostic or the threshold sensitivity in provocation tests are demonstrated. There are useful laboratory techniques as the detection of specific antibodies or the estimation of involved mediators. Further procedures for the identification and confirmation of the diagnosis of adverse reactions to food and food additives are suggested.

Allergens↗
PubMed1987

Food additives--an unending controversy.

The use of food additives originated in ancient times but did not engender controversy until the early 1800s, when intentional food adulteration became appallingly common in some countries. Problems with intentional food adulteration continued until about 1920, when regulatory pressures and effective methods of food analysis reduced the frequency and seriousness of food adulteration to acceptable levels in the United States. Since 1920 the use of legally sanctioned food additives has become common. However, for the last several decades the regulation of food additives has been a matter of controversy. Explanations for this controversy, which is likely to continue, are not difficult to identify and are discussed in the text.

Food Additives↗
PubMed1995

[Detection of food additives by enzyme immunoassay].

The analysis of synthesized food additives is generally performed by chromatography or spectrophotometry. However, the analytical procedures for natural food additives have been little reported so far because they are difficult to analyse chemically. We have attempted to apply enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to the analysis of natural food additives. Hen egg white lysozyme, as a food preservative, was determined by the competitive EIA, using mouse anti-HEL ascites. Carminic acid (CA), which is the main component of cochineal color, was determined by the competitive EIA, using monoclonal anti-CA antibody. Phycocyanin, which is the main component of spirulina color, was determined by the avidin-biotin sandwich EIA, using double monoclonal anti-phycocyanin antibodies.

Food Additives↗
PubMed1994

Change the rules for food additives.

The Delaney clause, embodied in US legislation in 1958, prohibits the addition to food of any level of any carcinogen. This position cannot be sustained in the face of progress in understanding chemically induced cancer.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Adverse reactions to food additives.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the literature related to the classification of food additives and their reported adverse reactions and to provide a practical approach for evaluation of patients suspected of having such reactions. DATA SOURCES: Information was derived from selected reviews and original articles published in peer-reviewed journals and from authoritative textbook chapters, supplemented by the clinical experience of the authors. STUDY SELECTION: Priority was given to studies that used blinded, placebo-controlled oral challenges to confirm adverse reactions to food additives. In addition, selected, appropriately evaluated case reports are included. RESULTS: A large number of food additives are widely used in the food industry. Adverse reactions to additives seem to be rare but are likely underdiagnosed in part due to a low index of suspicion. Numerous symptoms have been attributed to food additive exposure, but the cause-and-effect relationship has not been well demonstrated in all. CONCLUSIONS: Reactions to food additives should be suspected in patients who report symptoms to multiple unrelated foods or to a certain food when commercially prepared but not when homemade and the allergy evaluation rules out a role for food protein. It is also prudent to investigate food additives in patients considered to have idiopathic reactions. There is a minor role for skin testing or in vitro testing. Oral challenge testing with common additives, preferably preceded by a trial of an additive-free diet, is the definitive procedure for detecting the offending agent. Once the specific additive is identified, management is basically avoidance of all its forms.

Allergens↗
PubMed1978

[Chromosomal structure or porcine lymphocytes effected by food additives].

Different concentrations of food additives were introduced in cultures of pig lymphocytes. No special chromosomal damage were induced by anticoccidians. On the contrary some antibiotics caused chromosomic anomalies. Chloramphenicol and furazolidone assayed in vitro and in vivo had also an antimitotic effect. The purpose of this work was to know the cytotoxic effect of some substances: a preliminary and cheap test could be a cytogenetic examination in vitro.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Clinical relevance of food additives in adult patients with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions to food play an important role in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD). In infancy and childhood, food allergies are observed in up to 30%, whereas nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions (pseudoallergic reactions) towards food additives have been reported to occur between 2 and 7%. By contrast, sensitizations towards food allergens are rarely of clinical relevance in adults and little data is available on nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions. To date the role of pseudoallergic reactions as an aggravating factor in AD of adult patients remains controversial. However, many adult patients report on food-related aggravation of the disease and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions have been incriminated repeatedly. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the relevance of food additives in adult patients suffering from AD. METHODS: Fifty patients were monitored over 4 weeks under regular diet followed by 6 weeks of a diet omitting known pseudoallergens. Skin status of patients was assessed every 2 weeks by a standardized scoring, and serum eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) was determined before and after diet. RESULTS: Nine of fifty patients dropped out, 26 showed a significant improvement of the Costa-score by 57%. In 23/26 patients a corresponding reduction of serum ECP level by 52% on average was determined. Responder patients (24/26) were orally challenged with food rich in pseudoallergens followed by double-blind exposure to food additives (n = 15). A worsening of the eczema was seen in 19/24 patients after intake of pseudoallergen-rich food and in 6/15 patients after exposure to food additives. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that a subgroup of adult patients with AD clinically improve on low-pseudoallergen diet but only a small subgroup respond to oral provocation with food additives.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

FDA's priority-based assessment of food additives. I. Preliminary results.

The principles outlined in the Bureau of Foods' recently published Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food (the Redbook) have been systematically applied to a Bureau of Foods food additive data base comprising nearly 1600 food and color additives and synthetic flavoring substances. The present publication is the first of several papers reviewing and analyzing the results of this work. This paper describes the content and organization of the scientific data base that the Bureau has compiled, and presents some preliminary general conclusions regarding the processing of these data according to Redbook principles.

Animals↗