Review of the Terminology, Approaches, and Formulations Used in the Guidelines on Quantitative Risk Assessment of Chemical Hazards in Food

[EN] This paper reviews the published terminology, mathematical models, and the possible approaches used to characterise the risk of foodborne chemical hazards, particularly pesticides, metals, mycotoxins, acrylamide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The results confirmed the wide variability of the nomenclature used, e.g., 28 different ways of referencing exposure, 13 of cancer risk, or 9 of slope factor. On the other hand, a total of 16 equations were identified to formulate all the risk characterisation parameters of interest. Therefore, the present study proposes a terminology and formulation for some risk characterisation parameters based on the guidelines of international organisations and the literature review. The mathematical model used for non-genotoxic hazards is a ratio in all cases. However, the authors used the probability of cancer or different ratios, such as the margin of exposure (MOE) for genotoxic hazards. For each effect studied per hazard, the non-genotoxic effect was mostly studied in pesticides (79.73%), the genotoxic effect was mostly studied in PAHs (71.15%), and both effects were mainly studied in metals (59.4%). The authors of the works reviewed generally opted for a deterministic approach, although most of those who assessed the risk for mycotoxins or the ratio and risk for acrylamide used the probabilistic approach.Doménech Antich, EM.; Martorell Alsina, SS. (2024). Review of the Terminology, Approaches, and Formulations Used in the Guidelines on Quantitative Risk Assessment of Chemical Hazards in Food. Foods. 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods1305071413

Current-use pesticide exposure pathways in Czech adults and children from the CELSPAC-SPECIMEn cohort

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to characterise exposure to pyrethroids, organophosphates, and tebuconazole through multiple pathways in 110 parent-child pairs participating in the CELSPAC-SPECIMEn study. METHODS: First, we estimated the daily intake (EDI) of pesticides based on measured urinary metabolites. Second, we compared EDI with estimated pesticide intake from food. We used multiple linear regression to identify the main predictors of urinary pesticide concentrations. We also assessed the relationship between urinary pesticide concentrations and organic and non-organic food consumption while controlling for a range of factors. Finally, we employed a model to estimate inhalation and dermal exposure due to spray drift and volatilization after assuming pesticide application in crop fields. RESULTS: EDI was often higher in children in comparison to adults, especially in the winter season. A comparison of food intake estimates and EDI suggested diet as a critical pathway of tebuconazole exposure, less so in the case of organophosphates. Regression models showed that consumption per g of peaches/apricots was associated with an increase of 0.37% CI [0.23% to 0.51%] in urinary tebuconazole metabolite concentrations. Consumption of white bread was associated with an increase of 0.21% CI [0.08% to 0.35%], and consumption of organic strawberries was inversely associated (-61.52% CI [-79.34% to -28.32%]), with urinary pyrethroid metabolite concentrations. Inhalation and dermal exposure seemed to represent a relatively small contribution to pesticide exposure as compared to dietary intake. CONCLUSION: In our study population, findings indicate diet plays a significant role in exposure to the analysed pesticides. We found an influence of potential exposure due to spray drift and volatilization among the subpopulation residing near presumably sprayed crop fields to be minimal in comparison. However, the lack of data indicating actual spraying occurred during the critical 24-hour period prior to urine sample collection could be a significant contributing factor

Summary report on sensory-related socio-economic and sensory science literature about organic food products

Organic food’s initial attraction to the public was that it was perceived to be healthier and tastier, but scientists and policy makers have mainly stressed the benefits to the environment of organic and sustainable farming. Scientific support for marketing actions addressed to those who want to be healthier and who want to enjoy better taste, and are willing to pay more for these benefits is scarce. Past research has produced little clear evidence about the importance of sensory characteristics such as taste, smell, appearance etc in consumers’ preferences with regard to organic food. The Ecropolis project, funded by the E.U., was set up with the aim of investigating the role of the senses in consumers’ preferences regarding organic food, and leading to research into how best to satisfy those preferences. This deliverable is aimed at providing a solid basis for such research with an in-depth review of, and two reports on, the relevant scientific literature. The first report (Annex I) regards what consumers expect from organic products in terms of taste, smell, appearance, etc and how these expectations are (or are not) met; the second is about the science of the senses (Annex II). The first project tasks included creating and agreeing on a glossary of terms, deciding on search criteria (key words, etc.), setting up a bibliographical data base, preparing then circulating the above-mentioned reports, and finally preparing a summary of the reports. The report on consumers expectations highlights the suggestion that while organic food has traditionally been marketed through specialized retailers, its market share will only grow significantly if it is promoted by multiple retailers. Research literature from all over the world seems to agree in indicating that consumers’ choices are largely motivated by health, the environment, price and social status. Other considerations include ethics, the localness of the product and lifestyle choices. The literature also indicates that the organic market will expand significantly only if consumers are more willing, and able, to recognize quality, but this presents serious issues. When buying the product they cannot personally verify its quality and genuineness and thus must rely on regulation and inspection bodies. The recognition of quality can also be encouraged by effective communication by producers and retailers through appropriate branding, labelling and presentation. There are connections between this information and questions of sense perception, but researchers disagree about how important the latter is in influencing the customer, and in which ways it does so. The following report focuses, in fact, on the science of the senses, which tries to analyze in detail people’s responses to food, despite the many potential pitfalls in carrying out the research which might influence the reliability of the results. There is broad agreement on two points: - there is no proof that organic food is more nutritious or safer, and - most studies that have compared the taste and organoleptic quality of organic andconventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. Therefore, claiming that all organic food tastes different from all conventional food would not be correct. However, among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found differences, the vast majority favour organic produce. Organic produce tends to store better and has longer shelf life, probably because of lower levels of nitrates and higher average levels of antioxidants. The former can accelerate food spoilage, while antioxidants help preserve the integrity of cells and some are natural antibiotics. The first conclusion may, however, depend on factors not directly connected to organic farming, such as harvesting and storage methods and the type of land used for growing the food. About the second finding it must be considered that measuring organoleptic quality is difficult and inherently subjective and evaluations may be clouded by the influence of numerous factors on the consumer’s perceptions of the food and not just its appearance and taste. Experimental research indicates that the information that a food is organic confers upon it a “halo effect” (making it seem better sense-wise simply because it is organic) which might make consumers like it more. Ecropolis researchers will analyze in detail which senses are indeed impacted on, and how, and try to match them to consumer needs and expectations in order to be able to offer suggestions for future policy, including how the food is stored, transported and presented, which is also essential for maintaining sensory properties. The workpackage WP1 has also produced a specific report on how organic food sensory aspects are regulated. International standards, with some important exceptions, are largely in line with European ones. Differences in standards usually regard whether there is orientation towards freshness “per se” as opposed to increasing shelf-life, or quality standardization as opposed to quality differentiation. Differences in regulations regard such aspects as ingredients, additives, processing aids and methods, packaging, storage and transport. The lack of harmony among the different regulatory systems often reflects different traditions and market conditions, however, more complicated compliance procedures result in higher costs for importers. Greater homogeneity would not only reduce such costs but would also increase consumer confidence in international standards. Ecropolis will also investigate the effect of different regulations on how people perceive organic goods sense-wise. The work done to date is seen as a starting point for future research aimed at producing practical results in the organic food market. Ecropolis will try to bring together separate strands of research concerning how organic goods are regulated and marketed with regard to taste, appearance, etc., and how consumers themselves are affected by such factors. The aim is to find optimal matches between the two, and thus to greatly increase organic food’s share of the food market