Furan and Methylfurans in Foods: An Update on Occurrence, Mitigation, and Risk Assessment.

The acceptance of many foods is related to traditional cooking practices, which create taste and texture and are important to digestibility, preservation, and the reduction of foodborne illnesses. A wide range of compounds are formed during the cooking of foods, a number of these have been shown to lead to adverse effects in classical toxicological models and are known as food processing contaminants (FPC). It is essential that the presence and effects of such compounds alone and in combination within the diet are understood such that proportionate risk management measures can be developed, while taking a holistic view across the whole value chain. Furan and alkylfurans (principally 2- and 3-methylfuran) are highly volatile FPC, which are formed in a wide range of foods at low amounts. The focus of research to-date has been on those foods, which have been identified to be most consequential in terms of being sources of exposure, namely jarred and canned foods for infants and young children (meals and drinks) and coffee (roast and ground, soluble). This report presents (i) new industry data on the occurrence of furan and methylfurans in selected food categories following previous coffee studies, (ii) the most salient parameters that impact furan formation, and (iii) aspects of importance for the risk assessment.

Exposure assessment of process-related contaminants in food by biomarker monitoring.

Exposure assessment is a fundamental part of the risk assessment paradigm, but can often present a number of challenges and uncertainties. This is especially the case for process contaminants formed during the processing, e.g. heating of food, since they are in part highly reactive and/or volatile, thus making exposure assessment by analysing contents in food unreliable. New approaches are therefore required to accurately assess consumer exposure and thus better inform the risk assessment. Such novel approaches may include the use of biomarkers, physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling-facilitated reverse dosimetry, and/or duplicate diet studies. This review focuses on the state of the art with respect to the use of biomarkers of exposure for the process contaminants acrylamide, 3-MCPD esters, glycidyl esters, furan and acrolein. From the overview presented, it becomes clear that the field of assessing human exposure to process-related contaminants in food by biomarker monitoring is promising and strongly developing. The current state of the art as well as the existing data gaps and challenges for the future were defined. They include (1) using PBK modelling and duplicate diet studies to establish, preferably in humans, correlations between external exposure and biomarkers; (2) elucidation of the possible endogenous formation of the process-related contaminants and the resulting biomarker levels; (3) the influence of inter-individual variations and how to include that in the biomarker-based exposure predictions; (4) the correction for confounding factors; (5) the value of the different biomarkers in relation to exposure scenario's and risk assessment, and (6) the possibilities of novel methodologies. In spite of these challenges it can be concluded that biomarker-based exposure assessment provides a unique opportunity to more accurately assess consumer exposure to process-related contaminants in food and thus to better inform risk assessment.

Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals.

The European legislation on plant protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009) and biocides (Directive 98/8/EC), as well as the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 'REACH') only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or non-target species. However, there is currently no agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption. Consequently, an ECETOC task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies are proposed. These criteria combine the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. The criteria developed are presented in the form of flow charts for assessing relevant effects for both humans and wildlife species. In addition, since not all chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties are of equal hazard, assessment of potency is also proposed to discriminate chemicals of high concern from those of lower concern. The guidance presented in this paper includes refinements made to an initial proposal following discussion of the criteria at a workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists.

A framework to determine the effectiveness of dietary exposure mitigation to chemical contaminants.

In order to ensure the food safety, risk managers may implement measures to reduce human exposure to contaminants via food consumption. The evaluation of the effect of a measure is often an overlooked step in risk analysis process. The aim of this study was to develop a systematic approach for determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce dietary exposure to chemical contaminants. Based on expert opinion, a general framework for evaluation of the effectiveness of measures to reduce human exposure to food contaminants was developed. The general outline was refined by application to three different cases: 1) methyl mercury in fish and fish products, 2) deoxynivalenol in cereal grains, and 3) furan in heated products. It was found that many uncertainties and natural variations exist, which make it difficult to assess the impact of the mitigation measure. Whenever possible, quantitative methods should be used to describe the current variation and uncertainty. Additional data should be collected to cover natural variability and reduce uncertainty. For the time being, it is always better for the risk manager to have access to all available information, including an assessment of uncertainty; however, the proposed methodology provides a conceptual framework for addressing these systematically.