Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Risk–benefit assessment of seaweed Allergenicity risk assessment of novel protein

Risk–benefit assessment of seaweed Allergenicity risk assessment of novel protein IntroductionEuropean Food Risk Assessment (EU‐FORA) Fellowship Programme is an initiative of European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the aim to build European risk assessment capacity and knowledge community. This technical report describes the activities of the programme conducted at National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark, as follows: (i) Risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of seaweed, (ii) allergenicity risk assessment of a plant‐based novel protein (seaweed) and (iii) risk assessment of novel food (alfalfa protein).SeaweedThe world’s population is continuously growing and there are studies concluding that total food production should be increased by at least 60% to feed a world of more than 9 billion people by 2050.1 One of the challenges will be rising food production to meet the protein demand, showing the clear need to find alternative protein sources and to develop means of production that have less negative environmental impacts (European Commission, 2021). Seaweed is considered an alternative source of protein (Leandro et al., 2020).Seaweed has a high nutritional value due to its content of several dietary components (Leandro et al., 2020) and has been found to be a source of potential bioactive compounds (Holdt and Kraan, 2011). Seaweed is characterised by a high level of protein (up to 47% of dry weight in red species) (Mouritsen et al., 2013), low fat content (0.3–3.8% dry weight) and relatively high concentration of omega‐3, omega‐6 fatty acids and dietary fibre (Leandro et al., 2020). Seaweed is a source of minerals and vitamins (Leandro et al., 2020), particularly iodine, which is present in significant high concentrations in some species (Roleda et al., 2018) and could be of health concern. Furthermore, seaweeds could also be a source of potential harmful contaminants such as cadmium, mercury, inorganic arsenic and lead, due to their cell wall structure conferring them high absorption properties (Banach et al., 2020). Seaweed allergenicity has not been widely studied, but there are some reports in literature describing allergic reactions to it (Thomas et al., 2019). This toxicological profile has raised concern from several food authorities regarding the exposure to excessive levels of these contaminants upon seaweed consumption (ANSES, 2018; Duinker et al., 2020). EFSA identified seaweed as a potential emerging risk (EFSA, 2017). Therefore, it is a food which requires further investigation.Risk–benefit assessmentA risk–benefit assessment (RBA) is an evaluation of combined adverse and beneficial health effects associated with food in order to inform food safety and public health strategies (Verhagen et al., 2012). It is necessary to perform a RBA for seaweed in order to evaluate its health impact, considering its high nutritional value but also the concerns regarding some of its components. A risk–benefit balance for different intake levels of red seaweed Palmaria palmata (L.) Weber & Mohr had not been assessed previously, and therefore, it was included in this project under the EU‐FORA Fellowship Programme.Allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteinsFood allergy is considered as an adverse immune response to food (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). Immunoglobulin E (IgE)‐mediated immune reaction (type I), the most common one in food allergy, consists of two phases: (i) sensitisation, whereby the immune system develops hyper‐reactivity to the allergen upon exposure without symptoms, (ii) elicitation, clinical manifestations of immune response occur after re‐exposure to the allergen, which can be gastrointestinal, respiratory or on skin (Fernandez et al., 2013).Taking into account that seaweed is considered an alternative source of protein, and there is little information on the potential allergenicity of seaweed protein, it was considered relevant to include a project investigating the allergenicity of seaweed protein within the EU‐FORA Programme.Risk assessment of novel foodsNovel foods are defined as foods that had not been consumed to a significant degree by humans in the European Union before 15 May 1997. Their safety for consumers has to be assessed in terms of nutritional composition, microbiology, toxicology and allergenicity (EFSA NDA Panel, 2021). In the specific case of alfalfa, it is widely consumed as food, but not as isolated alfalfa protein. Therefore, an application will be submitted to EFSA in order to evaluate its safety for consumers as novel food. The fellow collaborated on the development of this dossier as part of the EU‐FORA Programme.Description of work programmeAimsThe aims of the work programme for the fellow were the following ones:Gaining expertise in performing RBA of food. This includes working on a specific RBA case on seaweed as part of the Risk–Benefit Group.Gaining expertise in allergenicity risk assessment of a plant‐based novel protein (seaweed) within the Research Group for Food Allergy Group. Introduction to novel proteins allergenicity risk assessment and experimental work were included.Learning about risk assessment of novel foods (alfalfa protein) in collaboration with the Research Group for Microbial Biotechnology and Biorefining, including thorough examination of all aspects of a novel food risk assessment.The activities described in Section 2.2 are aligned with the aims of the programme.Activities/MethodsThe fellow’s main project was to perform the RBA of seaweed, gaining experience in searching scientific databases, performing systematic data extraction from scientific publications and its evaluation, generation of data using dose–response modelling, discussion of results and their presentation and drafting the final output with results and conclusions in an harmonised format. The fellow collaborated with the Research Group for Food Allergy for a period, gaining practical experience in allergenicity assessment techniques. Finally, the fellow collaborated in the development of a novel food application, gaining experience in data extraction and collation and resolving practical issues in the preparation of an application.Risk–Benefit Assessment of seaweedInitially, the fellow conducted a literature search including risk–benefit methodology together with previously performed risk–benefit cases in order to understand different steps of the assessment. Following this, the fellow was involved in the development of a specific risk–benefit assessment case on Palmaria palmata in collaboration with other members of the Research Group for Risk–Benefit. The overall RBA was based on five stages (Figure 1).1FigureRisk–benefit assessment paradigm. Adapted from EFSA (2010)First, the risk–benefit objective was formulated: to quantify the overall health impact in terms of Disability‐Adjusted Life‐Years (DALYs) of the consumption of seaweed Palmaria palmata in the adult Danish population. In order to identify its nutrients and contaminants and their concentration levels, a literature search was performed. The identification of potential health effects was based on assessments from international expert reports, including publications from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO), regulatory agencies (EFSA; French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES); Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)), Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and scientific papers. For hazards and benefits characterisation, a literature search was also carried out to identify systematic reviews for epidemiological studies, including meta‐analyses, in order to develop dose–response models. These literature searches were performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect and Web of Science including articles up to September 2021. Palmaria palmata nutrients and chemical contaminants and their health effects are summarised in Appendix A.Three consumption scenarios were investigated, each one compared to zero intake of seaweed (reference scenario). Concentration data of different components were collected from the literature and internal databases, including seaweed samples from different European countries, years and seasons and the Danish food monitoring programme. An average value was calculated for each component taking into consideration the wide variation in their levels.Mean daily exposure to nutrients and chemical contaminants in each scenario was calculated considering mean daily intake of Palmaria palmata and mean concentration of each component in Palmaria palmata. For contaminants, it was expressed in terms of µg per unit body weight (70 kg as default), whereas for nutrients, it was expressed in absolute terms. Background dietary exposure was also taken into consideration when dose–response models applied were not considered linear. Data were taken from the Danish National Survey of Diet and Physical Activity 2011–2013 and National Food Institute. Population statistics used in the models were obtained from Statistics Denmark.The calculated daily exposure to nutrients and contaminants was combined with dose–response models to estimate the size of a given health effect associated with Palmaria palmata consumption in the three scenarios. The health effects were expressed and integrated in the composite health metric DALYs. DALY allows for the comparison of different health effects as it integrates the morbidity and mortality of a health effect in a single number, and one DALY is equal to one healthy life year lost (Devleesschauwer et al., 2014). Depending on the availability of data, ‘Top‐down’ or ‘Bottom‐up’ approaches were applied to estimate incidence and DALY of the different health effects (Gibb et al., 2015) (Appendix A). The last step was the integration of risks and benefits expressed in DALYs for each scenario and the comparison between different scenarios, through the calculation of the difference between alternative and reference scenarios (in ∆DALYs). ∆DALY > 0 implied a health loss due to Palmaria palmata intake, whereas ∆DALY < 0 meant a health gain. All modelling and calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel.A manuscript, currently under preparation, includes a comprehensive description of the risk–benefit assessment, details on the risk and benefit characterisation and dose–response models, calculations and results of the assessment. It is expected to be submitted for publication in a peer‐reviewed journal.To be able to carry out this project, the fellow had regular meetings and discussions with the supervisor as well as other members of the group experienced in risk–benefit. The fellow also scheduled meetings with different groups of the Division of Risk Assessment and Nutrition at National Food Institute in order to gather and discuss data such as seaweed composition, consumption, health effects, etc.Allergenicity risk assessment of seaweed proteinInitially, the fellow performed a literature review including novel protein allergenicity risk assessment in order to understand the approach to be followed. There are no validated methods to assess novel protein allergenicity at present. In vitro digestibility tests can provide information on the susceptibility of a protein to digestion, which can simulate its digestibility in the human gastrointestinal system and subsequent presentation to the host’s immune system (Foster et al., 2013). Historically, pepsin resistance test has been considered an assay for allergenic potential assessment within a weight‐of‐evidence approach (Astwood et al., 1996; Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009; EFSA GMO Panel, 2017). However, the predictability value of this test has been controversial because there is evidence showing that digestion may cancel, reduce, increase or not induce an effect on the allergenicity of food allergens (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). The main limitation of the pepsin resistance test is the difficulty to mimic human gastric digestion physiological conditions. Therefore, EFSA recommends using in vitro digestibility methods where human digestion process conditions can be simulated (gastric and intestinal digestion) (EFSA GMO Panel, 2017). Nevertheless, the classical pepsin resistance test provides information on stability of proteins including biochemical and physico‐chemical properties contributing to the overall safety assessment of the novel protein (EFSA GMO Panel, 2021).These limitations highlight the necessity of immunological tests (enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunoblots) in order to assess allergenic potential of food allergens and their digested products (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). In order to be considered a complete allergen (in type I food allergy), a protein has to fulfil these properties: IgE‐binding ability, allergic reaction elicitation and de novo sensitisation capacity, although not all allergens are complete allergens (Aalberse, 2000). This means the allergenic potential of digested products needs to be assessed on those levels in order to evaluate the effect of digestion on allergenicity (Verhoeckx et al., 2019).In this context, the fellow carried out a ‘hands‐on’ project on allergenicity assessment of plant‐based protein from different red and brown seaweed species. Previously, the fellow performed the Chemical Risk Assessment relevant to the assays to be carried out. This project required writing of protocols for each assay, assay optimisation and presenting the results in the Research Group for Food Allergy meetings.With the purpose to assess resistance to enzymes as a parameter in allergenicity assessment of novel proteins, the fellow performed in vitro digestibility tests with red and brown seaweed simulating gastrointestinal conditions. The protein profiles of intact protein and digestion products were characterised using electrophoretic techniques, which allowed them to separate peptides according to their size. Afterwards, immunoblots were carried out in order to assess the immunoreactivity of seaweed protein and its digestion products, and ELISA to evaluate the levels of animal antibodies reactive to these proteins (Figure 2). Results showed differences in protein digestibility of different seaweed species. Limited methods and results are presented in this report in order not to compromise the future scientific publication under preparation.2FigureStepwise approach followed in seaweed protein allergenicity assessment: seaweed protein in vitro digestion, protein characterisation throughout electrophoretic techniques and immunochemical techniques (ELISA and immunoblot). Pictures obtained from BioRenderNovel food applicationThe fellow collaborated with the Research Group for Microbial Biotechnology and Biorefining in the development of a plant‐based novel food (alfalfa protein) application to be submitted to EFSA. Initial literature searches were performed including ‘EFSA Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’ (EFSA NDA Panel, 2021) and scientific outputs (Ververis et al., 2020). After gathering all data requirements for the submission of novel food applications, several meetings took place where the fellow provided support and assistance guiding the responsible members of the project through the data requirements. Different practical aspects and the approach to be taken were also addressed. This task also included the exchange of knowledge with the supervisor, the professor and the PhD student in charge of the project.Additional activitiesDuring the EU‐FORA fellowship, the fellow had the opportunity to take part in the following activities:Preparation of a manuscript including results from the RBA of seaweed and collaboration in the drafting of a manuscript on allergenicity risk assessment of seaweed.Scientific division seminars: lectures including a wide range of projects within the area of food research.Weekly group meetings: discussion of ongoing projects and presentation of results.EUROTOX Virtual Congress 2021.9th BfR‐Summer Academy 2021: online training course on risk assessment and risk communication in the area of food safety provided by The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.WHO webinar: Burden of foodborne diseases: how can we estimate it and why do we need it?‘Bridging European Science III’ event in Copenhagen: international forum for scientific interactions between universities, companies and the public sector in the Nordic countries and Spain.National Food Institute ‐ Technical University of Denmark Conference: digitalisation.ConclusionsThe work programme carried out at National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark provided the fellow with expertise in RBA, novel foods and allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Through participation in the research group for risk–benefit, the fellow gained broad ‘hands‐on’ experience in performing a RBA and obtained deep knowledge through collaboration with colleagues experienced in different areas. Through collaboration with the research group for food allergy, the fellow was challenged to learn laboratory assays in the area of novel protein allergenicity assessment and to apply them in the assessment of specific seaweed protein samples. The outputs of the risk–benefit assessment and allergenicity assessment will be published in relevant peer‐reviewed journals. At the same time, the fellow worked on the development of a novel food application. During this work, the fellow expanded the knowledge in plant‐based novel foods and proteins, and got a thorough insight of the requirements for their risk assessment.In addition to these projects and activities developed at the hosting site, the trainings provided by the different institutions throughout the programme were of great value in the learning process of the fellow. Therefore, EU‐FORA programme was an excellent opportunity to promote knowledge exchange and future collaboration opportunities. The National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark made it possible for the fellow to gain a broader perspective and contribute to food safety assessment, in a multicultural and pleasant atmosphere.Notes1https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/icode/ReferencesAalberse RC, 2000. Structural biology of allergens. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 106, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1067/mai.2000.108434ANSES, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, 2018. OPINION of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the risk of excess iodine intake from the consumption of seaweed in foodstuffs. Request No 2017‐ SA‐0086. Available online: https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/NUT2017SA0086EN.pdfAstwood JD, Leach JN and Fuchs RL, 1996. Stability of food allergens to digestion in Vitro. Nature Biotechnology, 14, 1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1096‐1269Banach JL, Hoek‐van den Hil EF and van der Fels‐Klerx HJ, 2020. Food safety hazards in the European Seaweed Chain. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19, 332–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541‐4337.12523Bøgh KL and Madsen CB, 2016. Food allergens: is there a correlation between stability to digestion and allergenicity? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56, 1545–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.779569Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009. Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology. 2nd edition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, Rome. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a1554e/a1554e.pdfDevleesschauwer B, Havelaar AH, Maertens De Noordhout C, Haagsma JA, Praet N, Dorny P, Duchateau L, Torgerson PR, Van Oyen H and Speybroeck N, 2014. Calculating disability‐adjusted life years to quantify burden of disease. International Journal of Public Health, 59, 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038‐014‐0552‐zDuinker A, Sunde Roiha I, Amlund H, Dahl L, Lock EJ, Kögel T, Måge A and Tore Lunestad B, 2016. Potential risks posed by macroalgae for application as feed and food ‐ a Norwegian perspective, National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES), Bergen, Norway. Available online: https://www.mattilsynet.no/mat_og_vann/produksjon_av_mat/fisk_og_sjomat/rapport_makroalger_2016_nifes.23097/binary/Rapport%20makroalger%202016%20NifesEFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Afonso A, García Matas R, Maggiore A, Merten C and Robinson T, 2017. Technical report on EFSA’s Activities on Emerging Risks in 2016. EFSA Supporting Publication 2017;EN‐1336, 59 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN‐1336EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the food chain), 2009a. Scientific Opinion on Arsenic in Food. EFSA Journal 2009;7(10):1351, 199 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1351EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2009b. Cadmium in food ‐ Scientific opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. EFSA Journal 2009:980, 139 pp. https://doi.org/10/ggthsnEFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the food chain), 2010. Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. EFSA Journal 2010;8(4):1570, 151 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1570EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985, 241 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2017. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2017;15(5):4862, 49 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4862EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2021. Statement on in vitro protein digestibility tests in allergenicity and protein safety assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal, 2021;19(1):6350, 16 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6350EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for iodine. EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3660, 57 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3660EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2021. Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1). EFSA Journal 2021;19(3):6555, 27 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6555EFSA Scientific Committee, 2010. Guidance on human health risk‐benefit assessment of food. EFSA Journal 2010;8(7):1673, 41 pp. https://doi.org/10.2093/j.efsa.2010.1673European Commission, 2021. Food 2030. European Research&Innovation for Food & Nutrition Security. https://doi.org/10.2777/069319Fernandez A, Mills ENC, Lovik M, Spoek A, Germini A, Mikalsen A and Wal JM, 2013. Endogenous allergens and compositional analysis in the allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 62, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.08.023Foster ES, Kimber I and Dearman RJ, 2013. Relationship between protein digestibility and allergenicity: Comparisons of pepsin and cathepsin. Toxicology, 309, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2013.04.011Franceschi S, Preston‐Martin S, Dal Maso L, Negri E, La Vecchia C, Mack WJ, McTiernan A, Kolonel L, Mark SD, Mabuchi K, Jin F, Wingren G, Galanti R, Hallquist A, Glattre E, Lund E, Levi F, Linos D and Ron E, 1999. A pooled analysis of case‐control studies of thyroid cancer. IV. Benign Thyroid diseases. Cancer Causes & Control, 10, 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008907227706Gibb H, Devleesschauwer B, Bolger PM, Wu F, Ezendam J, Cliff J, Zeilmaker M, Verger P, Pitt J, Baines J, Adegoke G, Afshari R, Liu Y, Bokkers B, van Loveren H, Mengelers M, Brandon E, Havelaar AH and Bellinger D, 2015. World Health Organization Estimates of the Global and Regional Disease Burden of Four Foodborne Chemical Toxins, 2010: A Data Synthesis. F1000Research, 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7340.1Holdt SL and Kraan S, 2011. Bioactive compounds in seaweed: functional food applications and legislation. Journal of Applied Phycology, 23, 543–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811‐010‐9632‐5Jørgensen K and Olesen PT, 2018. Kainic Acid in the Seaweed Palmaria Palmata (Dulse). Food Additives and Contaminants: Part B Surveillance, 11, 198–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2018.1462258Leandro A, Pacheco D, Cotas J, Marques JC, Pereira L and Gonçalves AMM, 2020. Seaweed’s bioactive candidate compounds to food industry and global food security. Life, 10, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10080140Mouritsen OG, Dawczynski C, Duelund L, Jahreis G, Vetter W and Schröder M, 2013. On the human consumption of the red seaweed dulse (Palmaria palmata (L.) Weber & Mohr). Journal of Applied Phycology, 25, 1777–1791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811‐013‐0014‐7Mozzafarian D and Rimm EB, 2006. Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health. Evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA, 296, 1885–1899. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.15.1885Nauta MJ, Andersen R, Pilegaard K, Pires SM, Ravn‐Haren G, Tetens I and Poulsen M, 2018. Meeting the challenges in the development of risk‐benefit assessment of foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 76, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.004Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J, Winter N, Mete E and Morenga LT, 2019. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Lancet, 393, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(18)31809‐9Roleda MY, Skjermo J, Marfaing H, Jónsdóttir R, Rebours C, Gietl A, Stengel DB and Nitschke U, 2018. Iodine content in bulk biomass of wild‐harvested and cultivated edible seaweeds: inherent variations determine species‐specific daily allowable consumption. Food Chemistry, 254, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.02.024Thomas I, Siew LQC, Watts TJ and Haque R, 2019. Seaweed allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In Practice, 7, 714–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.11.009Thomsen ST, Pires SM, Devleesschauwer B, Poulsen M, Fagt S, Ygil KH and Andersen R, 2018. Investigating the risk‐benefit balance of substituting red and processed meat with fish in a danish diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 120, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.06.063Verhagen H, Tijhuis MJ, Gunnlaugsdóttir H, Kalogeras N, Leino O, Luteijn JM, Magnússon SH, Odekerken G, Pohjola MV, Tuomisto JT, Ueland Ø, White BC and Holm F, 2012. State of the art in benefit‐risk analysis: introduction. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.007Verhoeckx K, Bøgh KL, Dupont D, Egger L, Gadermaier G, Larré C, Mackie A, Menard O, Adel‐Patient K, Picariello G, Portmann R, Smit J, Turner P, Untersmayr E and Epstein MM, 2019. The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 129, 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.052Ververis E, Ackerl R, Azzollini D, Colombo PA, de Sesmaisons A, Dumas C, Fernandez‐Dumont A, Ferreira da Costa L, Germini A, Goumperis T, Kouloura E, Matijevic L, Precup G, Roldan‐Torres R, Rossi A, Svejstil R, Turla E and Gelbman W, 2020. Novel Foods in the European Union: Scientific Requirements and Challenges of the Risk Assessment Process by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Research International, 137, 109515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109515Yu X, Fan C, Shan Z, Teng X, Guan H, Li Y, Teng D, Jin Y, Chong W, Yang F, Dai H, Yu Y, Li J, Chen Y, Zhao D, Shi X, Hu F, Mao J, Gu X, Yang R, Tong Y, Wang W, Gao T, Li C and Teng W, 2008. A five‐year follow‐up study of goiter and thyroid nodules in three regions with different iodine intakes in China. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 31, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03345597AbbreviationsANSESFrench Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & SafetyDALYDisability‐Adjusted Life YearDHADocosahexaenoic acidEFSAEuropean Food Safety AuthorityELISAEnzyme‐linked immunosorbent assayEPAEicosapentaenoic acidEU‐FORAEuropean Food Risk AssessmentFAOFood and Agriculture OrganizationFSAIFood Safety Authority of IrelandIgEImmunoglobulin EIQIntelligence QuotientPIFPopulation Impact FractionRASFFRapid Alert System for Food and FeedRBARisk‐Benefit AssessmentRRRelative riskWHOWorld Health OrganisationYLDsYears lived with disabilityYLLsYears of life lostAppendix A – Risk‐Benefit assessment of seaweedA.1. Components and health effects associatedTable A.1 Palmaria palmata nutrients and chemical contaminants of interest included in the RBAComponentHealth effectReferenceLead↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA CONTAM Panel (2010)Cadmium↑ Chronic kidney diseaseEFSA CONTAM Panel (2009a,b)Methylmercury↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA CONTAM Panel (2012)Inorganic arsenic↑ Lung, bladder and skin cancerEFSA CONTAM Panel (2009a,b)Iodine↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA NDA Panel (2014)↑/↓ GoiterYu et al. (2008)↑/↓ Thyroid cancerFranceschi et al. (2017)Kainic acid↑ NeurotoxicityJørgensen and Olesen (2018)Docosahexaenoic acid, (DHA), Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)↓ Fatal coronary heart diseaseMozzafarian and Rimm (2006)Dietary fibre↓ Fatal coronary heart diseaseReynolds et al. (2019)↓ Type 2 diabetes mellitus↓ Colorectal cancer↑: increased effect (adverse effect of the component and associated health outcome); ↓: decreased effect (beneficial effect of the component and associated health outcome); IQ: intelligence quotient.A.2. Disability‐adjusted life years (DALY) calculationA.2.1. ‘Bottom‐up’ approachIt was applied when estimates of current incident cases or DALY of a given health effect irrespective of risk factors were not available. Incidence of disease was estimated due to the exposure using dose–response models (Nauta et al., 2018). The disease burden of each health effect was quantified in DALYs, composed of years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost due to premature mortality (YLLs). YLDs are calculated as follows:YLDd,s,a=ACd,s,a×Dd×DWd,where ACd,s,a is the annual number of incident cases for health outcome d for sex s and age a, Dd is the duration of health outcome d and DWd is the disability weight for health outcome d. The disability weight can be interpreted as a measure of good health, ranging from zero (perfect health) to one (death) (Devleesschauwer et al., 2014). YLLs are calculated as follows:YLLd,s,a=ADd,s,a×SEYLLs,a,where ADd,s,a is the annual number of deaths due to the health outcome d for sex s and age a, and SEYLLs,a is the standard expected years of life lost for a death for sex s and at age a (Thomsen et al., 2018) (WHO, 2017). DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLD and YLL:DALYd=∑s∑a(YLDd,s,a+YLLd,s,a).A.2.2. ‘Top‐down’ approachIt combines epidemiological and incidence data and estimates the number of attributable cases of a certain health outcome due to exposure to Palmaria palmata (Nauta et al., 2018). It was applied when disease or DALY envelopes were available.Dose–response models already available in literature were applied with modifications. When relative risk (RR) estimates were available in literature, dose–response functions were derived following these equations (Barendregt and Veerman, 2010):β=ln(RRliterature)/doseRR=exp(β×exposure),where RRliterature is the relative risk for each health outcome obtained from literature, RR is the relative risk for each scenario and exposure is the intake of each component in each scenario.In order to calculate the change in DALYs for each scenario, population impact fraction (PIF) was used to estimate the proportion of health outcome cases that could be prevented by the change of the exposure to different components of Palmaria palmata from the reference to alternative scenarios (Murray et al., 2003). RR shift methodology was applied, assuming the changes in the RR of scenarios describe the change in exposure (Barendregt and Veerman, 2010), according to the following equation:PIFd=(RRd,ref-RRd,alt)/RRd,ref,where RRd,ref is the relative risk of reference scenario for health outcome d and RRd,alt is relative risk of alternative scenario for health outcome d.The health effect in DALY for each component and health outcome was calculated using the following formula:DALY=PIFd×DALYGBD,where PIFd is the population impact fraction for health outcome d and DALYGBD is DALY value obtained from GBD Results tool. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png EFSA Journal Wiley

Risk–benefit assessment of seaweed Allergenicity risk assessment of novel protein

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/risk-benefit-assessment-of-seaweed-allergenicity-risk-assessment-of-dVZ0ZzJKHz

References (84)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© European Food Safety Authority
eISSN
1831-4732
DOI
10.2903/j.efsa.2022.e200414
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IntroductionEuropean Food Risk Assessment (EU‐FORA) Fellowship Programme is an initiative of European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the aim to build European risk assessment capacity and knowledge community. This technical report describes the activities of the programme conducted at National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark, as follows: (i) Risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of seaweed, (ii) allergenicity risk assessment of a plant‐based novel protein (seaweed) and (iii) risk assessment of novel food (alfalfa protein).SeaweedThe world’s population is continuously growing and there are studies concluding that total food production should be increased by at least 60% to feed a world of more than 9 billion people by 2050.1 One of the challenges will be rising food production to meet the protein demand, showing the clear need to find alternative protein sources and to develop means of production that have less negative environmental impacts (European Commission, 2021). Seaweed is considered an alternative source of protein (Leandro et al., 2020).Seaweed has a high nutritional value due to its content of several dietary components (Leandro et al., 2020) and has been found to be a source of potential bioactive compounds (Holdt and Kraan, 2011). Seaweed is characterised by a high level of protein (up to 47% of dry weight in red species) (Mouritsen et al., 2013), low fat content (0.3–3.8% dry weight) and relatively high concentration of omega‐3, omega‐6 fatty acids and dietary fibre (Leandro et al., 2020). Seaweed is a source of minerals and vitamins (Leandro et al., 2020), particularly iodine, which is present in significant high concentrations in some species (Roleda et al., 2018) and could be of health concern. Furthermore, seaweeds could also be a source of potential harmful contaminants such as cadmium, mercury, inorganic arsenic and lead, due to their cell wall structure conferring them high absorption properties (Banach et al., 2020). Seaweed allergenicity has not been widely studied, but there are some reports in literature describing allergic reactions to it (Thomas et al., 2019). This toxicological profile has raised concern from several food authorities regarding the exposure to excessive levels of these contaminants upon seaweed consumption (ANSES, 2018; Duinker et al., 2020). EFSA identified seaweed as a potential emerging risk (EFSA, 2017). Therefore, it is a food which requires further investigation.Risk–benefit assessmentA risk–benefit assessment (RBA) is an evaluation of combined adverse and beneficial health effects associated with food in order to inform food safety and public health strategies (Verhagen et al., 2012). It is necessary to perform a RBA for seaweed in order to evaluate its health impact, considering its high nutritional value but also the concerns regarding some of its components. A risk–benefit balance for different intake levels of red seaweed Palmaria palmata (L.) Weber & Mohr had not been assessed previously, and therefore, it was included in this project under the EU‐FORA Fellowship Programme.Allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteinsFood allergy is considered as an adverse immune response to food (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). Immunoglobulin E (IgE)‐mediated immune reaction (type I), the most common one in food allergy, consists of two phases: (i) sensitisation, whereby the immune system develops hyper‐reactivity to the allergen upon exposure without symptoms, (ii) elicitation, clinical manifestations of immune response occur after re‐exposure to the allergen, which can be gastrointestinal, respiratory or on skin (Fernandez et al., 2013).Taking into account that seaweed is considered an alternative source of protein, and there is little information on the potential allergenicity of seaweed protein, it was considered relevant to include a project investigating the allergenicity of seaweed protein within the EU‐FORA Programme.Risk assessment of novel foodsNovel foods are defined as foods that had not been consumed to a significant degree by humans in the European Union before 15 May 1997. Their safety for consumers has to be assessed in terms of nutritional composition, microbiology, toxicology and allergenicity (EFSA NDA Panel, 2021). In the specific case of alfalfa, it is widely consumed as food, but not as isolated alfalfa protein. Therefore, an application will be submitted to EFSA in order to evaluate its safety for consumers as novel food. The fellow collaborated on the development of this dossier as part of the EU‐FORA Programme.Description of work programmeAimsThe aims of the work programme for the fellow were the following ones:Gaining expertise in performing RBA of food. This includes working on a specific RBA case on seaweed as part of the Risk–Benefit Group.Gaining expertise in allergenicity risk assessment of a plant‐based novel protein (seaweed) within the Research Group for Food Allergy Group. Introduction to novel proteins allergenicity risk assessment and experimental work were included.Learning about risk assessment of novel foods (alfalfa protein) in collaboration with the Research Group for Microbial Biotechnology and Biorefining, including thorough examination of all aspects of a novel food risk assessment.The activities described in Section 2.2 are aligned with the aims of the programme.Activities/MethodsThe fellow’s main project was to perform the RBA of seaweed, gaining experience in searching scientific databases, performing systematic data extraction from scientific publications and its evaluation, generation of data using dose–response modelling, discussion of results and their presentation and drafting the final output with results and conclusions in an harmonised format. The fellow collaborated with the Research Group for Food Allergy for a period, gaining practical experience in allergenicity assessment techniques. Finally, the fellow collaborated in the development of a novel food application, gaining experience in data extraction and collation and resolving practical issues in the preparation of an application.Risk–Benefit Assessment of seaweedInitially, the fellow conducted a literature search including risk–benefit methodology together with previously performed risk–benefit cases in order to understand different steps of the assessment. Following this, the fellow was involved in the development of a specific risk–benefit assessment case on Palmaria palmata in collaboration with other members of the Research Group for Risk–Benefit. The overall RBA was based on five stages (Figure 1).1FigureRisk–benefit assessment paradigm. Adapted from EFSA (2010)First, the risk–benefit objective was formulated: to quantify the overall health impact in terms of Disability‐Adjusted Life‐Years (DALYs) of the consumption of seaweed Palmaria palmata in the adult Danish population. In order to identify its nutrients and contaminants and their concentration levels, a literature search was performed. The identification of potential health effects was based on assessments from international expert reports, including publications from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO), regulatory agencies (EFSA; French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES); Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)), Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and scientific papers. For hazards and benefits characterisation, a literature search was also carried out to identify systematic reviews for epidemiological studies, including meta‐analyses, in order to develop dose–response models. These literature searches were performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect and Web of Science including articles up to September 2021. Palmaria palmata nutrients and chemical contaminants and their health effects are summarised in Appendix A.Three consumption scenarios were investigated, each one compared to zero intake of seaweed (reference scenario). Concentration data of different components were collected from the literature and internal databases, including seaweed samples from different European countries, years and seasons and the Danish food monitoring programme. An average value was calculated for each component taking into consideration the wide variation in their levels.Mean daily exposure to nutrients and chemical contaminants in each scenario was calculated considering mean daily intake of Palmaria palmata and mean concentration of each component in Palmaria palmata. For contaminants, it was expressed in terms of µg per unit body weight (70 kg as default), whereas for nutrients, it was expressed in absolute terms. Background dietary exposure was also taken into consideration when dose–response models applied were not considered linear. Data were taken from the Danish National Survey of Diet and Physical Activity 2011–2013 and National Food Institute. Population statistics used in the models were obtained from Statistics Denmark.The calculated daily exposure to nutrients and contaminants was combined with dose–response models to estimate the size of a given health effect associated with Palmaria palmata consumption in the three scenarios. The health effects were expressed and integrated in the composite health metric DALYs. DALY allows for the comparison of different health effects as it integrates the morbidity and mortality of a health effect in a single number, and one DALY is equal to one healthy life year lost (Devleesschauwer et al., 2014). Depending on the availability of data, ‘Top‐down’ or ‘Bottom‐up’ approaches were applied to estimate incidence and DALY of the different health effects (Gibb et al., 2015) (Appendix A). The last step was the integration of risks and benefits expressed in DALYs for each scenario and the comparison between different scenarios, through the calculation of the difference between alternative and reference scenarios (in ∆DALYs). ∆DALY > 0 implied a health loss due to Palmaria palmata intake, whereas ∆DALY < 0 meant a health gain. All modelling and calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel.A manuscript, currently under preparation, includes a comprehensive description of the risk–benefit assessment, details on the risk and benefit characterisation and dose–response models, calculations and results of the assessment. It is expected to be submitted for publication in a peer‐reviewed journal.To be able to carry out this project, the fellow had regular meetings and discussions with the supervisor as well as other members of the group experienced in risk–benefit. The fellow also scheduled meetings with different groups of the Division of Risk Assessment and Nutrition at National Food Institute in order to gather and discuss data such as seaweed composition, consumption, health effects, etc.Allergenicity risk assessment of seaweed proteinInitially, the fellow performed a literature review including novel protein allergenicity risk assessment in order to understand the approach to be followed. There are no validated methods to assess novel protein allergenicity at present. In vitro digestibility tests can provide information on the susceptibility of a protein to digestion, which can simulate its digestibility in the human gastrointestinal system and subsequent presentation to the host’s immune system (Foster et al., 2013). Historically, pepsin resistance test has been considered an assay for allergenic potential assessment within a weight‐of‐evidence approach (Astwood et al., 1996; Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009; EFSA GMO Panel, 2017). However, the predictability value of this test has been controversial because there is evidence showing that digestion may cancel, reduce, increase or not induce an effect on the allergenicity of food allergens (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). The main limitation of the pepsin resistance test is the difficulty to mimic human gastric digestion physiological conditions. Therefore, EFSA recommends using in vitro digestibility methods where human digestion process conditions can be simulated (gastric and intestinal digestion) (EFSA GMO Panel, 2017). Nevertheless, the classical pepsin resistance test provides information on stability of proteins including biochemical and physico‐chemical properties contributing to the overall safety assessment of the novel protein (EFSA GMO Panel, 2021).These limitations highlight the necessity of immunological tests (enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunoblots) in order to assess allergenic potential of food allergens and their digested products (Bøgh and Madsen, 2016). In order to be considered a complete allergen (in type I food allergy), a protein has to fulfil these properties: IgE‐binding ability, allergic reaction elicitation and de novo sensitisation capacity, although not all allergens are complete allergens (Aalberse, 2000). This means the allergenic potential of digested products needs to be assessed on those levels in order to evaluate the effect of digestion on allergenicity (Verhoeckx et al., 2019).In this context, the fellow carried out a ‘hands‐on’ project on allergenicity assessment of plant‐based protein from different red and brown seaweed species. Previously, the fellow performed the Chemical Risk Assessment relevant to the assays to be carried out. This project required writing of protocols for each assay, assay optimisation and presenting the results in the Research Group for Food Allergy meetings.With the purpose to assess resistance to enzymes as a parameter in allergenicity assessment of novel proteins, the fellow performed in vitro digestibility tests with red and brown seaweed simulating gastrointestinal conditions. The protein profiles of intact protein and digestion products were characterised using electrophoretic techniques, which allowed them to separate peptides according to their size. Afterwards, immunoblots were carried out in order to assess the immunoreactivity of seaweed protein and its digestion products, and ELISA to evaluate the levels of animal antibodies reactive to these proteins (Figure 2). Results showed differences in protein digestibility of different seaweed species. Limited methods and results are presented in this report in order not to compromise the future scientific publication under preparation.2FigureStepwise approach followed in seaweed protein allergenicity assessment: seaweed protein in vitro digestion, protein characterisation throughout electrophoretic techniques and immunochemical techniques (ELISA and immunoblot). Pictures obtained from BioRenderNovel food applicationThe fellow collaborated with the Research Group for Microbial Biotechnology and Biorefining in the development of a plant‐based novel food (alfalfa protein) application to be submitted to EFSA. Initial literature searches were performed including ‘EFSA Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’ (EFSA NDA Panel, 2021) and scientific outputs (Ververis et al., 2020). After gathering all data requirements for the submission of novel food applications, several meetings took place where the fellow provided support and assistance guiding the responsible members of the project through the data requirements. Different practical aspects and the approach to be taken were also addressed. This task also included the exchange of knowledge with the supervisor, the professor and the PhD student in charge of the project.Additional activitiesDuring the EU‐FORA fellowship, the fellow had the opportunity to take part in the following activities:Preparation of a manuscript including results from the RBA of seaweed and collaboration in the drafting of a manuscript on allergenicity risk assessment of seaweed.Scientific division seminars: lectures including a wide range of projects within the area of food research.Weekly group meetings: discussion of ongoing projects and presentation of results.EUROTOX Virtual Congress 2021.9th BfR‐Summer Academy 2021: online training course on risk assessment and risk communication in the area of food safety provided by The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.WHO webinar: Burden of foodborne diseases: how can we estimate it and why do we need it?‘Bridging European Science III’ event in Copenhagen: international forum for scientific interactions between universities, companies and the public sector in the Nordic countries and Spain.National Food Institute ‐ Technical University of Denmark Conference: digitalisation.ConclusionsThe work programme carried out at National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark provided the fellow with expertise in RBA, novel foods and allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Through participation in the research group for risk–benefit, the fellow gained broad ‘hands‐on’ experience in performing a RBA and obtained deep knowledge through collaboration with colleagues experienced in different areas. Through collaboration with the research group for food allergy, the fellow was challenged to learn laboratory assays in the area of novel protein allergenicity assessment and to apply them in the assessment of specific seaweed protein samples. The outputs of the risk–benefit assessment and allergenicity assessment will be published in relevant peer‐reviewed journals. At the same time, the fellow worked on the development of a novel food application. During this work, the fellow expanded the knowledge in plant‐based novel foods and proteins, and got a thorough insight of the requirements for their risk assessment.In addition to these projects and activities developed at the hosting site, the trainings provided by the different institutions throughout the programme were of great value in the learning process of the fellow. Therefore, EU‐FORA programme was an excellent opportunity to promote knowledge exchange and future collaboration opportunities. The National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark made it possible for the fellow to gain a broader perspective and contribute to food safety assessment, in a multicultural and pleasant atmosphere.Notes1https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/icode/ReferencesAalberse RC, 2000. Structural biology of allergens. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 106, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1067/mai.2000.108434ANSES, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, 2018. OPINION of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the risk of excess iodine intake from the consumption of seaweed in foodstuffs. Request No 2017‐ SA‐0086. Available online: https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/NUT2017SA0086EN.pdfAstwood JD, Leach JN and Fuchs RL, 1996. Stability of food allergens to digestion in Vitro. Nature Biotechnology, 14, 1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1096‐1269Banach JL, Hoek‐van den Hil EF and van der Fels‐Klerx HJ, 2020. Food safety hazards in the European Seaweed Chain. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19, 332–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541‐4337.12523Bøgh KL and Madsen CB, 2016. Food allergens: is there a correlation between stability to digestion and allergenicity? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56, 1545–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.779569Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009. Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology. 2nd edition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, Rome. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a1554e/a1554e.pdfDevleesschauwer B, Havelaar AH, Maertens De Noordhout C, Haagsma JA, Praet N, Dorny P, Duchateau L, Torgerson PR, Van Oyen H and Speybroeck N, 2014. Calculating disability‐adjusted life years to quantify burden of disease. International Journal of Public Health, 59, 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038‐014‐0552‐zDuinker A, Sunde Roiha I, Amlund H, Dahl L, Lock EJ, Kögel T, Måge A and Tore Lunestad B, 2016. Potential risks posed by macroalgae for application as feed and food ‐ a Norwegian perspective, National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES), Bergen, Norway. Available online: https://www.mattilsynet.no/mat_og_vann/produksjon_av_mat/fisk_og_sjomat/rapport_makroalger_2016_nifes.23097/binary/Rapport%20makroalger%202016%20NifesEFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Afonso A, García Matas R, Maggiore A, Merten C and Robinson T, 2017. Technical report on EFSA’s Activities on Emerging Risks in 2016. EFSA Supporting Publication 2017;EN‐1336, 59 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN‐1336EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the food chain), 2009a. Scientific Opinion on Arsenic in Food. EFSA Journal 2009;7(10):1351, 199 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1351EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2009b. Cadmium in food ‐ Scientific opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. EFSA Journal 2009:980, 139 pp. https://doi.org/10/ggthsnEFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the food chain), 2010. Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. EFSA Journal 2010;8(4):1570, 151 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1570EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985, 241 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2017. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2017;15(5):4862, 49 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4862EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2021. Statement on in vitro protein digestibility tests in allergenicity and protein safety assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal, 2021;19(1):6350, 16 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6350EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for iodine. EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3660, 57 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3660EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2021. Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1). EFSA Journal 2021;19(3):6555, 27 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6555EFSA Scientific Committee, 2010. Guidance on human health risk‐benefit assessment of food. EFSA Journal 2010;8(7):1673, 41 pp. https://doi.org/10.2093/j.efsa.2010.1673European Commission, 2021. Food 2030. European Research&Innovation for Food & Nutrition Security. https://doi.org/10.2777/069319Fernandez A, Mills ENC, Lovik M, Spoek A, Germini A, Mikalsen A and Wal JM, 2013. Endogenous allergens and compositional analysis in the allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 62, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.08.023Foster ES, Kimber I and Dearman RJ, 2013. Relationship between protein digestibility and allergenicity: Comparisons of pepsin and cathepsin. Toxicology, 309, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2013.04.011Franceschi S, Preston‐Martin S, Dal Maso L, Negri E, La Vecchia C, Mack WJ, McTiernan A, Kolonel L, Mark SD, Mabuchi K, Jin F, Wingren G, Galanti R, Hallquist A, Glattre E, Lund E, Levi F, Linos D and Ron E, 1999. A pooled analysis of case‐control studies of thyroid cancer. IV. Benign Thyroid diseases. Cancer Causes & Control, 10, 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008907227706Gibb H, Devleesschauwer B, Bolger PM, Wu F, Ezendam J, Cliff J, Zeilmaker M, Verger P, Pitt J, Baines J, Adegoke G, Afshari R, Liu Y, Bokkers B, van Loveren H, Mengelers M, Brandon E, Havelaar AH and Bellinger D, 2015. World Health Organization Estimates of the Global and Regional Disease Burden of Four Foodborne Chemical Toxins, 2010: A Data Synthesis. F1000Research, 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7340.1Holdt SL and Kraan S, 2011. Bioactive compounds in seaweed: functional food applications and legislation. Journal of Applied Phycology, 23, 543–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811‐010‐9632‐5Jørgensen K and Olesen PT, 2018. Kainic Acid in the Seaweed Palmaria Palmata (Dulse). Food Additives and Contaminants: Part B Surveillance, 11, 198–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2018.1462258Leandro A, Pacheco D, Cotas J, Marques JC, Pereira L and Gonçalves AMM, 2020. Seaweed’s bioactive candidate compounds to food industry and global food security. Life, 10, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10080140Mouritsen OG, Dawczynski C, Duelund L, Jahreis G, Vetter W and Schröder M, 2013. On the human consumption of the red seaweed dulse (Palmaria palmata (L.) Weber & Mohr). Journal of Applied Phycology, 25, 1777–1791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811‐013‐0014‐7Mozzafarian D and Rimm EB, 2006. Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health. Evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA, 296, 1885–1899. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.15.1885Nauta MJ, Andersen R, Pilegaard K, Pires SM, Ravn‐Haren G, Tetens I and Poulsen M, 2018. Meeting the challenges in the development of risk‐benefit assessment of foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 76, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.004Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J, Winter N, Mete E and Morenga LT, 2019. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Lancet, 393, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(18)31809‐9Roleda MY, Skjermo J, Marfaing H, Jónsdóttir R, Rebours C, Gietl A, Stengel DB and Nitschke U, 2018. Iodine content in bulk biomass of wild‐harvested and cultivated edible seaweeds: inherent variations determine species‐specific daily allowable consumption. Food Chemistry, 254, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.02.024Thomas I, Siew LQC, Watts TJ and Haque R, 2019. Seaweed allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In Practice, 7, 714–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.11.009Thomsen ST, Pires SM, Devleesschauwer B, Poulsen M, Fagt S, Ygil KH and Andersen R, 2018. Investigating the risk‐benefit balance of substituting red and processed meat with fish in a danish diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 120, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.06.063Verhagen H, Tijhuis MJ, Gunnlaugsdóttir H, Kalogeras N, Leino O, Luteijn JM, Magnússon SH, Odekerken G, Pohjola MV, Tuomisto JT, Ueland Ø, White BC and Holm F, 2012. State of the art in benefit‐risk analysis: introduction. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.007Verhoeckx K, Bøgh KL, Dupont D, Egger L, Gadermaier G, Larré C, Mackie A, Menard O, Adel‐Patient K, Picariello G, Portmann R, Smit J, Turner P, Untersmayr E and Epstein MM, 2019. The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 129, 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.052Ververis E, Ackerl R, Azzollini D, Colombo PA, de Sesmaisons A, Dumas C, Fernandez‐Dumont A, Ferreira da Costa L, Germini A, Goumperis T, Kouloura E, Matijevic L, Precup G, Roldan‐Torres R, Rossi A, Svejstil R, Turla E and Gelbman W, 2020. Novel Foods in the European Union: Scientific Requirements and Challenges of the Risk Assessment Process by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Research International, 137, 109515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109515Yu X, Fan C, Shan Z, Teng X, Guan H, Li Y, Teng D, Jin Y, Chong W, Yang F, Dai H, Yu Y, Li J, Chen Y, Zhao D, Shi X, Hu F, Mao J, Gu X, Yang R, Tong Y, Wang W, Gao T, Li C and Teng W, 2008. A five‐year follow‐up study of goiter and thyroid nodules in three regions with different iodine intakes in China. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 31, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03345597AbbreviationsANSESFrench Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & SafetyDALYDisability‐Adjusted Life YearDHADocosahexaenoic acidEFSAEuropean Food Safety AuthorityELISAEnzyme‐linked immunosorbent assayEPAEicosapentaenoic acidEU‐FORAEuropean Food Risk AssessmentFAOFood and Agriculture OrganizationFSAIFood Safety Authority of IrelandIgEImmunoglobulin EIQIntelligence QuotientPIFPopulation Impact FractionRASFFRapid Alert System for Food and FeedRBARisk‐Benefit AssessmentRRRelative riskWHOWorld Health OrganisationYLDsYears lived with disabilityYLLsYears of life lostAppendix A – Risk‐Benefit assessment of seaweedA.1. Components and health effects associatedTable A.1 Palmaria palmata nutrients and chemical contaminants of interest included in the RBAComponentHealth effectReferenceLead↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA CONTAM Panel (2010)Cadmium↑ Chronic kidney diseaseEFSA CONTAM Panel (2009a,b)Methylmercury↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA CONTAM Panel (2012)Inorganic arsenic↑ Lung, bladder and skin cancerEFSA CONTAM Panel (2009a,b)Iodine↑ Intellectual disability (lowered IQ)EFSA NDA Panel (2014)↑/↓ GoiterYu et al. (2008)↑/↓ Thyroid cancerFranceschi et al. (2017)Kainic acid↑ NeurotoxicityJørgensen and Olesen (2018)Docosahexaenoic acid, (DHA), Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)↓ Fatal coronary heart diseaseMozzafarian and Rimm (2006)Dietary fibre↓ Fatal coronary heart diseaseReynolds et al. (2019)↓ Type 2 diabetes mellitus↓ Colorectal cancer↑: increased effect (adverse effect of the component and associated health outcome); ↓: decreased effect (beneficial effect of the component and associated health outcome); IQ: intelligence quotient.A.2. Disability‐adjusted life years (DALY) calculationA.2.1. ‘Bottom‐up’ approachIt was applied when estimates of current incident cases or DALY of a given health effect irrespective of risk factors were not available. Incidence of disease was estimated due to the exposure using dose–response models (Nauta et al., 2018). The disease burden of each health effect was quantified in DALYs, composed of years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost due to premature mortality (YLLs). YLDs are calculated as follows:YLDd,s,a=ACd,s,a×Dd×DWd,where ACd,s,a is the annual number of incident cases for health outcome d for sex s and age a, Dd is the duration of health outcome d and DWd is the disability weight for health outcome d. The disability weight can be interpreted as a measure of good health, ranging from zero (perfect health) to one (death) (Devleesschauwer et al., 2014). YLLs are calculated as follows:YLLd,s,a=ADd,s,a×SEYLLs,a,where ADd,s,a is the annual number of deaths due to the health outcome d for sex s and age a, and SEYLLs,a is the standard expected years of life lost for a death for sex s and at age a (Thomsen et al., 2018) (WHO, 2017). DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLD and YLL:DALYd=∑s∑a(YLDd,s,a+YLLd,s,a).A.2.2. ‘Top‐down’ approachIt combines epidemiological and incidence data and estimates the number of attributable cases of a certain health outcome due to exposure to Palmaria palmata (Nauta et al., 2018). It was applied when disease or DALY envelopes were available.Dose–response models already available in literature were applied with modifications. When relative risk (RR) estimates were available in literature, dose–response functions were derived following these equations (Barendregt and Veerman, 2010):β=ln(RRliterature)/doseRR=exp(β×exposure),where RRliterature is the relative risk for each health outcome obtained from literature, RR is the relative risk for each scenario and exposure is the intake of each component in each scenario.In order to calculate the change in DALYs for each scenario, population impact fraction (PIF) was used to estimate the proportion of health outcome cases that could be prevented by the change of the exposure to different components of Palmaria palmata from the reference to alternative scenarios (Murray et al., 2003). RR shift methodology was applied, assuming the changes in the RR of scenarios describe the change in exposure (Barendregt and Veerman, 2010), according to the following equation:PIFd=(RRd,ref-RRd,alt)/RRd,ref,where RRd,ref is the relative risk of reference scenario for health outcome d and RRd,alt is relative risk of alternative scenario for health outcome d.The health effect in DALY for each component and health outcome was calculated using the following formula:DALY=PIFd×DALYGBD,where PIFd is the population impact fraction for health outcome d and DALYGBD is DALY value obtained from GBD Results tool.

Journal

EFSA JournalWiley

Published: May 1, 2022

Keywords: risk–benefit; allergenicity risk assessment; seaweed; novel food; novel protein

There are no references for this article.