new approaches to adversity assessment in food safety
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in
Food Safety Evaluation
Daniel Krewski, PhD, MHA
McLaughlin Centre for
Population Health Risk Assessment
University of Ottawa [email protected]; www.mclaughlincentre.ca
&
Risk Sciences International [email protected]; www.risksciences.com
![Page 2: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Declaration of Interest Statement
Scientific Director of the McLaughlin Centre for Population
Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa,
supported by the R. Samuel McLaughlin Foundation
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada Industrial Research Chair in Risk Science at the
University of Ottawa
Chief Risk Scientist at Risk Sciences International, a
Canadian company established in 2006 in partnership with
the University of Ottawa
![Page 3: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Outline
• Traditional and Future Approaches
• Determining Adversity: Past and Future
• Severity Scoring Based on Degree of Adversity
• Evidence Integration
• Summary
![Page 4: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Subchronic
Toxicity &
Reproduction
U
+
Accept
Reject
Defined
Test
Material
Exposure
Assessment
Acute
Toxicity
Reject
+ Genetic
Toxicology
-
Metabolism &
Pharmokinetics
+
Reject
-
Accept
S
Reject
+ -
?
Reject
Chronic
Toxicity
Accept
+
-
Traditional Approaches to Food Safety Assessment
Food Safety Council (1980)
![Page 5: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Case Study: Sodium Saccharin
1981: Saccharin banned as a direct food additive on
the basis of urinary bladder tumours induced
in male rats in two-generation cancer bioassay
2010: Saccharin removed from US EPAs hazardous
substances list following re-evaluations of
the scientific data by the US NTP and by
the International Agency for Research on
Cancer in the 1990s
![Page 6: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Two-Generation Lifetime Bioassay of Sodium Saccharin
Concentration Incidence of Percent
in Diet (%) Bladder Tumours Response
0.00 0/324 0
1.00 5/658 1
3.00 8/472 2
4.00 12/189 6
5.00 15/120 13
6.25 20/120 17
7.50 37/118 31
5.00 (through gestation) 0/122 0
5.00 (following gestation) 12/120 10
International Research and Development Corporation (1985)
![Page 7: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Mechanism of Saccharin Induced Rat Bladder Tumours
National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens (1991), p. 91
“When sodium saccharin is fed to male rats at high dietary levels
(about 2.5%), the concentration of urinary sodium is increased and
the pH level is elevated (above 6.5). Under these conditions, binding
of saccharin and male rat α2u-globulin results in the formation of
silicon containing crystallized precipitate in the bladder
After binding, the precipitate enters the bladder urothelial walls and
is cytotoxic. Acting as microabrasives, the silicate and precipitate
particles irritate the mucosa and cause focal necrosis.
The loss of urothelial cells results in regenerative hyperplasia and
increased cell proliferation which, when sustained over a lifetime,
provides the basis for urinary bladder tumorigenesis.”
![Page 8: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Next Generation of Risk Science
• New paradigm for toxicity testing, as
described in Toxicity Testing in the 21st
Century (NRC, 2007)
• Advanced risk assessment
methodologies, including those
addressed in Science and Decisions (NRC, 2009)
• Population health approach,
incorporating multiple health
determinants and multiple interventions (Krewski et al., 2007, HERA, 13:1288-1312)
Krewski et al. (2014): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307260/
![Page 9: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century
www.nas.edu
![Page 10: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Future Approaches to Food Safety Assessment
Krewski et al. (2011), ARPH: 32:161-178.
![Page 11: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Motivation for Change
Increased throughput, reduced costs
Early screening of potential new food chemicals
Test directly in human cells and human cell lines
Test directly at lower dose levels
Understand toxicity pathways and pathway
perturbations
Characterize interactions among toxicity pathways
Characterize interactions between test agent and
concomitant exposures
![Page 12: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Compatibility of New Approaches with Existing Statutes?
“Agency rulemaking provides
the legal flexibility to
implement a new toxicity
testing program using existing
laws.”
The Environmental Forum (2008), pp. 46-51.
![Page 13: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Implementing the New Paradigm: Selected Methodological Issues
1. Adversity
2. Dose-response
3. Variability
4. Susceptible populations
5. Dose and species extrapolation
6. Mixtures and multiple stressors
7. Uncertainty analysis
![Page 14: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Determining Adversity: Past and Future
Issue Current
Approach
NexGen Approach
Adverse
outcomes
Apical outcomes in
mammalian systems,
or precursors to
these outcomes,
serve as the basis
for risk assessment.
In vitro assays identify
critical toxicity pathway
perturbations, which
serve as the basis for
risk assessment, even
in the absence of a
direct link with an apical
outcome.
![Page 15: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Defining Adversity in the Absence of Apical Outcomes
![Page 16: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Dose-Response Analysis: Signal-to-Noise Crossover Dose (SNCD)
Sand, Portier & Krewski, Environmental Health Perspectives (2011), pp. 1766-1774.
![Page 17: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Application to High-Throughput Screening Data
Dose-response models fit to
over 10,000 datasets for over
1,400 chemicals tested as
part of the Tox21 program
44 nuclear receptor assays,
23 cytotoxicity assays, 12
stress response assays
Analysis used to calibrate
SNCD against traditional BMD
![Page 18: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Exposure Science in the 21st Century
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13507
![Page 19: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Human Biomonitoring
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Canadian Health Measures
Survey (CHMS)
NHANES
![Page 20: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Establishing Biomonitoring Equivalents
![Page 21: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Biomonitoring Equivalents
• 2,4-D
• Acrylamide
• Cadmium
• Cyfluthrin
• Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
• Phthalate Esters: Diethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Benzylbutyl phthalate
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
• Toluene
• Trihalomethanes: Chloroform Dibromochloromethane Bromodichloromethane Bromoform
http://www.biomonitoringequivalents.net/html/chemical_specific_bes.html
![Page 22: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
High-Throughput Biomonitoring
Jones, D.P. (2016), Toxicol. Rep. 3, 29-45.
![Page 23: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Combining High-Throughput In Vitro Testing with High-Throughput Exposure Assessment
![Page 24: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Comparison of Bioactivity Patterns for 163 ToxCast Chemicals
with High-Throughput Exposure Modeling Results
![Page 25: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Evidence Required for Establishing Dietary Reference Intakes
![Page 26: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
U-Shaped Dose-Response for Essential Nutrients
Dose (Concentration)
Essentiality
Excess Deficiency
Homeostasis
Zone
of
conflict
Zone
of
conflict
Very Low Very High
Resp
on
se
Highly
Abnormal
Normal
Resp
on
se
Highly
Abnormal
Normal
![Page 27: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Joint Model for Excess and Deficiency (JMED)
![Page 28: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Copper Toxicity Database: Severity Scoring of Adverse Events
![Page 29: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Copper Toxicity Database
![Page 30: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Optimal Intake of Copper
xMINDUE = 2.73 mg/day
For humans, a daily oral intake of 2.73 mg will minimize the probability of a departure
from a non-normal response attributed to excess or deficiency. The 95% confidence
interval for xMINDUE is (1.57, 4.46) and is analogous to an acceptable range of oral intakes.
![Page 31: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Application to Manganese . . .
![Page 32: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
. . . with Incorporation of Pharmacokinetics
![Page 33: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Evidence Integration
Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (NRC, 2014)
![Page 34: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Systematic Review: Objective and Reproducible
![Page 35: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Quantitative Synthesis Using Meta-Analysis
![Page 36: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Summary
• New paradigm for toxicological assessment of chemicals based on:
− Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (NRC, 2007)
− Exposure Science in the 21st Century (NRC, 2012)
− Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related Evaluations (NRC,
2017)
• Need for change motivated by
− Increased throughput and lower cost
− Greater human relevance
− Obtain evidence directly at human exposure levels
• New paradigm presents challenges in re-defining adversity, and
adaptation of regulatory practice to reflect new evidence of adversity
• New approaches to evidence integration and synthesis will ensure
consideration of all relevant data in food safety assessment
![Page 37: New Approaches to Adversity Assessment in Food Safety](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022012022/6169bea211a7b741a34ae1ff/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Further Reading
Barton-Maclaren, T., Darshan, S. and Mattison, D.R. [Eds]. Risk Science in the 21st Century.
International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 20 (1/2/3):1-283.
Council of Canadian Academies (2012). Integrating Emerging Technologies into Chemical
Safety Assessment. Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa.
I. Cote, M. E. Andersen, G. T. Ankley, et al. The next generation of risk assessment
multiyear study- highlights of findings, applications to risk assessment and future directions.
Environmental Health Perspectives DOI:10.1289/EHP233, 2016.
D. Krewski, M. Westphal, M. E. Andersen, G. M. Paoli, W. A. Chiu, M. Al-Zoughool, M. C.
Croteau, L. D. Burgoon, and I. Cote. A framework for the next generation of risk science.
Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (8):796-805, 2014.
National Research Council (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a
Strategy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (2012). Exposure Science in the 21st Century. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (2014). Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (2017). Incorporating 21st Century Science into Risk-Related
Evaluations. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.