Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved.

Deriving individual threshold doses from clinical food challenge data for population risk assessment of food allergens.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are a significant public health issue, and the only effective management option currently available is strict avoidance of all foods containing the allergen. In view of the practical impossibility of limiting risks to zero, quantitative allergen risk assessment and management strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop appropriate methods for informing population-based risk assessments and risk management programs to benefit all stakeholders but particularly patients with food allergy. METHODS: Individual thresholds for food allergens (maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses) can ideally be established through double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. If double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge data are not available, data from widely used open food challenges using predefined objective criteria can also provide useful data regarding minimum eliciting doses. For more than 20 years, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have been collecting individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses that produce objective symptoms from published and unpublished clinical data to better refine knowledge regarding the sensitivity of the population to food allergens. RESULTS: In this article we provide in-depth insights into the methodology applied by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to derive individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses for objective symptoms from clinical food challenge data. More than 90 examples for determining individual allergic thresholds are presented. CONCLUSION: With the methodology presented in this article, we aim to stimulate harmonization and transparency in quantitative food allergen risk assessment and risk management programs, encouraging their wider adoption.

Identifying and managing patients at risk of severe allergic reactions to food: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy affects a small but important number of children and adults. Much of the morbidity associated with food allergy is driven by the fear of a severe reaction and fatalities continue to occur. Foods are the commonest cause of anaphylaxis. One of the aims of the European Union-funded Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) project was to improve the identification and management of children and adults at risk of experiencing a severe reaction. A number of interconnected studies within the project have focused on quantifying the severity of allergic reactions; the impact of food matrix, immunological factors on severity of reactions; the impact of co-factors such as medications on the severity of reactions; utilizing single-dose challenges to understand threshold and severity of reactions; and community studies to understand the experience of patients suffering real-life allergic reactions to food. Associated studies have examined population thresholds and co-factors such as exercise and stress. This paper summarizes two workshops focused on the severity of allergic reactions to food. It outlines the related studies being undertaken in the project indicating how they are likely to impact on our ability to identify individuals at risk of severe reactions and improve their management.

Evidence-based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU-funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross-stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13-14 December 2016 and 19-20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well-being in consumers with food allergy.

Understanding how consumers with food allergies make decisions based on precautionary labelling.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumer perceptions is crucial if effective food safety policy and risk communication are to be developed and implemented. We sought to understand how those living with food allergy assess risk with precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and their preference in how risks are communicated within a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) framework. METHODS: The Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) labelling online survey was developed for adults and parents of children with food allergy and distributed across Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and UK via patient support groups. RESULTS: There were 1560 complete responses. 'This product is not suitable for' was selected as first choice for PAL by 46% overall and 'May contain' was selected as the first choice by 44%. Seventy-three percent reported that it would improve their trust in a product if a QRA process had been used to make a decision about whether to include 'may contain'. Overall, 66% reported that a 'statement + symbol' on the label indicating a QRA, would help them to understand the risk assessment process that had been used by the food manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers want to know what process has actually taken place for the placing of a PAL and/or risk assessment statement on a particular food product. Our findings provide a basis for the development of more informative communication around food allergen risk and safety and support evidence-based policy-making in the context of the legislative requirements of the European Union's Food Information for Consumers Regulation.

Human Allergen-Specific IgG Subclass Antibodies Measured Using ImmunoCAP Technology.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of human IgG subclass antibody responses to various allergens has been hampered by a lack of reliable standardized assays. The aim here was to develop quantitative immunoassays for human IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3 antibodies using ImmunoCAP® technology and to evaluate their application. METHODS: Enzyme conjugates with isotype-specific monoclonal antibodies and calibrators composed of purified myeloma paraproteins were developed for each assay and used together with other standardized assay reagents for the Phadia® 100 instrument. The calibrators were adjusted to the international reference preparation IRP 67/86. The assays were characterized and used together with other standard ImmunoCAP assays to measure antibodies to various allergens in preliminary studies. RESULTS: The new assays had limits of quantitation of 1.0 (IgG1), 4.6 (IgG2), and 0.04 mgA/L (IgG3), and coefficients of variation of <20%. Only some minor cross-reactivity with IgG2 was observed for the specific IgG1 assay. The specific IgG2 assay showed a bias for the allotype G2m(23) and compensation factors were used to adjust the measured concentrations accordingly. Preliminary studies indicated a strong and stable IgG4 antibody response to ß-lactoglobulin in healthy individuals, a high IgG1 and even higher IgG2 antibody response to house dust mite in sensitized and nonsensitized subjects, and a mixed IgG subclass response to venom allergens in allergic patients with increasing IgG4 antibody levels during venom immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The new research assays are valuable tools for immunological studies, enabling the characterization of antibody profiles using a standardized approach, and facilitating data interpretation and the comparison of results across studies.

How much is too much? Threshold dose distributions for 5 food allergens.

BACKGROUND: Precautionary labeling is used to warn consumers of the presence of unintended allergens, but the lack of agreed allergen thresholds can result in confusion and risk taking by patients with food allergy. The lack of data on threshold doses below which subjects are unlikely to react is preventing the development of evidence-based allergen management strategies that are understood by clinician and patient alike. OBJECTIVE: We sought to define threshold dose distributions for 5 major allergenic foods in the European population. METHODS: Patients with food allergy were drawn from the EuroPrevall birth cohort, community surveys, and outpatient clinic studies and invited to undergo a food challenge. Low-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges were undertaken with commercially available food ingredients (peanut, hazelnut, celery, fish, and shrimp) blinded into common matrices. Dose distributions were modeled by using interval-censoring survival analysis with 3 parametric approaches. RESULTS: Of the 5 foods used for challenge, 4 produced similar dose distributions, with estimated doses eliciting reactions in 10% of the allergic population (ED10), ranging from 1.6 to 10.1 mg of protein for hazelnut, peanut, and celery with overlapping 95% CIs. ED10 values for fish were somewhat higher (27.3 mg of protein), although the CIs were wide and overlapping between fish and plant foods. Shrimp provided radically different dose distributions, with an ED10 value of 2.5 g of protein. CONCLUSION: This evidence base will contribute to the development of reference doses and action levels for allergens in foods below which only the most sensitive subjects might react.

Allergen reference doses for precautionary labeling (VITAL 2.0): clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic proliferation of precautionary labeling by manufacturers to mitigate the perceived risk from low-level contamination from allergens in food. This has resulted in a significant reduction in choice of potentially safe foods for allergic consumers. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish reference doses for 11 commonly allergenic foods to guide a rational approach by manufacturers based on all publically available valid oral food challenge data. METHODS: Reference doses were developed from statistical dose-distribution modeling of individual thresholds of patients in a dataset of more than 55 studies of clinical oral food challenges. Sufficient valid data were available for peanut, milk, egg, and hazelnut to allow assessment of the representativeness of the data used. RESULTS: The data were not significantly affected by the heterogeneity of the study methodology, including little effect of age on results for those foods for which sufficient numbers of adult challenge data were available (peanut and hazelnut). Thus by combining data from all studies, the eliciting dose for an allergic reaction in 1% of the population estimated for the following were 0.2 mg of protein for peanut, 0.1 mg for cow's milk, 0.03 mg for egg, and 0.1 mg for hazelnut. CONCLUSIONS: These reference doses will form the basis of the revised Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labeling (VITAL) 2.0 thresholds now recommended in Australia. These new levels will enable manufacturers to apply credible precautionary labeling and provide increased consumer confidence in their validity and reliability, as well as improving consumer safety.

An in vitro protocol to characterise the resistance of food proteins to intestinal digestion.

In vitro digestion tests provide data on the form in which dietary proteins maybe presented to the gut mucosal immune system, one of many strands of evidence used in allergenicity risk assessment. A 96-well plate format in vitro intestinal digestion protocol has been developed with a high and low enzyme activity test executed at pH 6.5 and 8.0. It was applied to the systematic analysis of test proteins (including six allergens and one non-allergenic comparator) which were either completely resistant to pepsinolysis or gave rise to large persistent fragments following in vitro gastric digestion. Digestion was monitored using SDS-PAGE and densitometry. Proteins resistant to pepsin were also resistant to intestinal digestion irrespective of the protocol applied and gave rise to large persistent digestion fragments. In contrast persistent fragments from pepsin digestion were readily digested. Bile salts enhanced the digestibility of two highly resistant proteins, lysozyme ad ß-lactoglobulin, changing the rank order of protein digestibility. Intestinal digestion tests that include bile salts provide a more physiologically relevant system for future investigation into how digestion products may influence the balance between tolerance and sensitization - and hence contribute to future development of a more effective allergenicity risk assessment process.

Bile salts enhance the susceptibility of the peach allergenic lipid transfer protein, Pru p 3, to in vitro gastrointestinal proteolysis.

Sensitisation to the lipid transfer protein Pru p 3 is associated with severe allergic reactions to peach, the proteins stability being thought to play a role in its allergenicity. Lipid binding increases susceptibility of Pru p 3 to digestion and so the impact of bile salts on the in vitro gastrointestinal digestibility of Pru p 3 was investigated and digestion products mapped by SDS-PAGE and mass spectrometry. Bile salts enhanced the digestibility of Pru p 3 resulting in an ensemble of around 100 peptides spanning the protein's sequence which were linked by disulphide bonds into structures of ~ 5-6 kDa. IgE binding studies with a serum panel from peach allergic subjects showed digestion reduced, but did not abolish, the IgE reactivity of Pru p 3. These data show the importance of including bile salts in vitro digestion systems and emphasise the need to profile of digestion in a manner that allows identification of immunologically relevant disulphide-linked peptide aggregates.

Assessing protein digestibility in allergenicity risk assessment: A comparison of in silico and high throughput in vitro gastric digestion assays.

The susceptibility of a novel food protein to digestion in the pepsin resistance test is widely used to inform the allergenicity risk assessment process. However, it does not model the variation in the intragastric environment found in vivo. Consequently a 96-well plate format in vitro gastric digestion protocol has been developed with a high and low pepsin activity test executed at pH 1.2, 2.5, 5.5 and 6.5. It was used to analyse seven allergens (from milk, egg, peach and peanut) and two non-allergens (cytochrome c and zein). Digestion was monitored using SDS-PAGE and densitometry. In silico predictions were not confirmed experimentally for most of the proteins studied. Proteins were ranked according to half-life and showed susceptibility to digestion was related to the stability of protein structure and protein solubility rather than allergenicity per se. Highly digestible proteins, such as ß-casein and Ara h 1, generated abundant resistant fragments Mr > 3.5 kDa in the low pepsin activity test which could be immunologically significant within the context of allergenicity risk assessment for susceptible groups such as infants. The high- and low pepsin activity tests used in this study provided complementary data to support allergenicity risk assessment and used only 10 mg protein.

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis.

Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of "priority" allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen ("may contain") labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed "reference doses," below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure.

Food allergy: stakeholder perspectives on acceptable risk.

We have reached a point where it is difficult to improve food allergy risk management without an agreement on levels of acceptable risk. This paper presents and discusses the perspectives of the different stakeholders (allergic consumers, health professionals, public authorities and the food industry) on acceptable risk in food allergy. Understanding where these perspectives diverge and even conflict may help develop an approach to define what is acceptable. Uncertainty about food allergy, its consequences and how to manage them is the common denominator of the stakeholders' views. In patients, uncertainty is caused by the unpredictability of reactions and the concern about whether avoidance strategies will be effective enough. Variability of symptoms and the lack of markers do not allow stratification of patients according to their reactivity, and force health professionals to give the same advice to all patients despite the fact that the risk to each is not identical. Regulators and the food industry struggle with the fact that the lack of management thresholds forces them to make case-by-case decisions in an area of uncertainty with penalties for under- or over-prediction. As zero risk is not a realistic possibility, consensus on acceptable risk will be needed.

COST Action 'ImpARAS': what have we learnt to improve food allergy risk assessment. A summary of a 4 year networking consortium.

The growing world population and increased pressure on agricultural resources are driving a shortage of dietary protein sources. As a result, industry is developing more sustainable novel food protein sources such as insects, algae and duckweed and using new processing techniques. Consumer exposure to these novel or processed proteins, could cause new food allergies, exacerbating a public health issue which is already directly affecting an estimated 20 million Europeans. Introduction of novel foods should not add to the burden of food allergy and this calls for a reliable, harmonised, evidence-based and validated allergenicity risk assessment strategy. The COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action ImpARAS (Improved Allergenicity Risk Assessment Strategy), a four-year networking project, identified gaps in current allergy risk assessment, and proposed new ideas and plans for improving it. Here, we report on the lessons learned from the ImpARAS network and suggestions for future research. The safe introduction of novel and more sustainable food protein sources, while protecting humans from food allergy, calls for a multidisciplinary approach based on an improved understanding of what determines the relative allergenic potency of proteins, novel testing and assessment methodologies, harmonized decision-making criteria, and a clear ranking approach to express the allergenicity of novel product relative to that of existing known allergenic proteins: (from 'non'/to weakly and to strongly allergenic proteins).

Sensitivity analysis to derive a food consumption point estimate for deterministic food allergy risk assessment.

One of the input parameters in food allergy risk assessment is the amount of a given food consumed at an eating occasion. There is no consensus on how to use food consumption data when assessing the risk from unintended allergen presence in food products. A sensitivity analysis was performed to establish the optimal food consumption estimate for a deterministic food allergy risk assessment. Exposure was calculated for consumption percentiles (50th percentile, P50 to maximum) using the iFAAM consumption database in conjunction with an allergen concentration range from 1 to 1000 ppm. The resulting allergen intakes were compared to the allergic population reference doses proposed by Taylor et al. (2014) for 10 major allergenic foods. Optimal consumption percentiles were defined as those which predicted an intake below the relevant reference dose and met the defined acceptable risk level confirmed by probabilistic risk assessments. Analysis showed that, for 99% of the food groups, the P50 consumption met our criteria, while the P75 did so for 100% of the food groups. We suggest that the P75 is the optimal point estimate for use in deterministic food allergy risk assessment. It meets the safety objective and is adequately conservative for a public health context.

Defining the targets for the assessment of IgE-mediated allergenicity of new or modified food proteins.

Many food innovations rely on the introduction and use of new or modified proteins. New or modified food proteins may lead to major health risks due to their inherent potential to cause food allergy. Currently, the pre-market allergenicity assessment for new or modified food proteins and protein sources relies on methods for identifying allergenic hazards based on characteristics of known allergens. However, there is no general consensus on the allergenicity parameters to use and the criteria that should apply for the evaluation and decisions to be made. In this paper, we propose that the strategy for allergenicity risk assessment of new or modified food proteins and the methodologies applied should be governed by the risk management questions to be answered, reflected in the information needed by risk managers to enable their informed decision making. We generated an inventory of health outcome-related assessment parameters and criteria potentially important for risk management decision-making and we discuss the implications of selecting different optional criteria (e.g. cut-off values) for what could be accepted as safe with regards to the health outcomes in the (at risk) population. The impact of these various options on both method development and risk management practices was investigated.

ILSI Europe's Food Allergy Task Force: From Defining the Hazard to Assessing the Risk from Food Allergens.

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe Food Allergy Task Force was founded in response to early public concerns about the growing impact of food allergies almost coincidentally with the publication of the 1995 Food and Agriculture Organization-World Health Organization Technical Consultation on Food Allergies. In line with ILSI principles aimed to foster collaboration between stakeholders to promote consensus on science-based approaches to food safety and nutrition, the task force has played a central role since then in the development of risk assessment for food allergens. This ranged from consideration of the criteria to be applied to identifying allergens of public health concern through methodologies to determine the relationship between dose and the proportion of allergic individuals reacting, as well as the nature of the observed responses. The task force also promoted the application of novel, probabilistic risk assessment methods to better delineate the impact of benchmarks, such as reference doses, and actively participated in major European food allergy projects, such as EUROPREVALL, the European Union (EU)-funded project "The prevalence, cost and basis of food allergy across Europe;" and iFAAM, "Integrated approaches to food allergen and allergy risk management," also an EU-funded project. Over the years, the task force's work has evolved as answers to initial questions raised further issues: Its current work program includes a review of analytical methods and how different ones can best be deployed given their strengths and limitations. Another activity, which has just commenced, aims to develop a framework for stakeholders to achieve consensus on acceptable risk.