293 G. Meko et al. (eds.

), Understanding and Managing Threats to the Environment in South

Eastern Europe, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0611-8_16, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract World climate, environmental and other global changes would have
wide-ranging and, mostly, adverse consequences for human health. These changes
are a significant and emerging threat to public health, including the growing season,
variability of crop yields and water demands. Above mentioned factors have been
influenced in areas of food security and food safety and moreover the food indus-
try struggle for profits. These factors control the conditions and affect the use of
chemicals in the agriculture and food industry. In this chapter, the risk assessment
of chemicals in food as a part of risk analysis process have been addressed. We
would like to point out the importance of this process in the area of public health
and consumer protection. Through food and nutrition products and most often
misleading advertisements, people are exposed to different hazards that could have
severe harmful consequences. Among the consumer groups, children are mostly
vulnerable because of their adult dependencies, age and body weight. In this chap-
ter, an example of risk assessment of exposure to food additives among preschool
children in Slovenia is evaluated.
E. Miovi (*)
Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Kotnikova 8, 1000 Ljubljana,
Slovenia
e-mail: elizabeta.micovic@gmail.com
M. Gorenjak
Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
and
Faculty of Agriculture and Life sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
G. Meko
Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Institute of Security Strategies, University of Maribor,
Kotnikova 8, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: gorazd.mesko@fvv.uni-mb.si
A. Cenci
Faculty of Agriculture and Life sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
and
Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
Chapter 16
Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food
for Public Health Protection
Elizabeta Miovi, Mario Gorenjak, Gorazd Meko, and Avrelija Cenci
294 E. Miovi et al.
16.1 Introduction
Living in a risk society as a parallel to the rapid changes witnessed in all spheres of
life indicates the growth of various threats. Constantly changing circumstances in a
society are increasing the number of hazards. As humans convert more land, water,
and ecosystem services for their own use, the environmental changes resulting from
these activities are combining to magnify several serious public health threats
including exposure to infectious disease, food scarcity, water scarcity, air pollution,
natural disasters, and population displacement. Taken together, these represent the
greatest public health challenge of the twenty-first century.
One of them is climate change, which threatens human health in numerous and
profound ways. Large segments of the population will experience more heat waves,
altered exposure to infectious disease and more frequent natural disasters. Climatic
disruption threatens health for large populations around the globe: sufficient food
and nutrition, safe water for drinking and sanitation, fresh air to breathe, and secure
homes to live in. Such a society with such a lifestyle would certainly have to adjust
the responsiveness of a good organization coordinated team of experts in various
fields, in addition to a strategic consideration (thinking), should agree measures of
the ability to realize them operational (Heines et al. 2000).
Although altered exposure to infectious disease receives much of our attention,
the most important impacts of global change on human health are likely to result
from reduced access to food and safe water. As the human population expands,
world agricultural production will roughly double over the next 50 years to keep up
with projected demand (Myers and Patz 2009). Food production is already facing
significant ecological constraints including limits to arable land, water scarcity,
soil nutrient depletion, and biological limits to increasing crop yields. Climate
change will further challenge food production through myriad mechanisms and is
expected to reduce yields significantly in many regions of the world particularly
those where food scarcity is already endemic (McMichael et al. 1996; Heines et al.
2000; Gregory et al. 2005; WMO 2007).
One of the results of all these new conditions in food production is also using chemi-
cals with the aim to achieve sufficient quantities of food (food security), which has to
be of good quality and safe (food quality and food safety) (FAO/WHO 2002; Unnevehr
2003). Worrying risk factors, such as chemicals that are in the food are invisible, just
as their effects are not immediately visible. These risks are set out as acceptable risks,
especially given the fact that it has not developed adequate methods of determining the
exact exposure to these risk factors and their impact on health (Beck 2001).
It is urgent to reduce ecological disruption while simultaneously strengthening
the resilience of populations to withstand the impacts of unavoidable environmental
change (Vanderlinden et al. 2005). Therefore, it is important to develop a strong
tool to analyse risk, special hazards and effects on health of consumers. In response
to some unwanted and unexpected incidents of non-food, safety system is a risk
analysis developed to be a tool for early detection of risks, facilitating the prompt
effective action. Risk analysis is based on a database of research results to scientific
and sociological sciences. Results of risk analysis contribute to trust all those
295 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
involved in the system and to ensure safe food (Kleter and Marvin 2009).
Management risk analysis involves combining activities related to risk assessment,
risk management and risk communication, and is used to guide the adoption of
administrative decisions at the national and international level, including in the
areas of trade (Buchanan et al. 2004).
Risk assessment is a scientific process that usually begins in order to define the
reasons for the request, risk assessment and efficiency of implementation. Risk
assessors are responsible for scientific evaluation whether a formal risk assessment
is necessary or not (Benford 2001; Mack et al. 2006).
The challenge of risk is that these risks represent a potent political charge, and
potential political challenge. Identifying the risks, risk assessment and risk manage-
ment can lead to a reorganization of power and responsibilities in the society. Therefore,
the development of the risk of conflict developed between those who seek to risk and
those who profit from them. It is important to have sufficient information to enable it
to research potential risks carefully investigated and can be regarded as acceptable or
unacceptable (Teuschler and Hertzberg 1995; Beck 2001; Newburn 2007).
It is very important to change way we protect the vulnerable populations.
Children are one of the most vulnerable populations as they are more heavily
exposed to environmental toxins than adults. In this chapter, an example study
among preschool childrens exposure to food additives in food they consumed and
risk assessment of such exposure have been addressed. Food intake of preservatives,
polyphosphates, sweeteners and colours was observed with aim to find out if such
exposure is an acceptable or unacceptable risk for children included in this study.
16.2 Consumer as Possible Victim of Invisible Threats
Consumers by definition, include us all. They are the largest economic group,
affecting and affected by almost every public and private economic decision.
Furthermore, consumers are the only important group whose views are often not
heard (Kennedy 1962). A consumer is a person who buys goods or services for
personal needs and not for resale or use in the production of other goods for resale
(Zakon o varstvu potronikov [ZVPot-UPB2] 2004).
Routine Activity Theory (RAT) is one of the main theories of environmental
criminology. Criminologists Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson have worked for
a number of years on crime prevention theory. RAT states that for a crime to occur,
three elements must be present at the same time and in the same place: a suitable
target is available, there is the lack of a suitable guardian to prevent the crime from
happening and likely a motivated offender is present (Cohen and Felson 1979). All
three elements from the theory in the area of food safety are recognized the
motivated offender as the food industry, the suitable targets as consumers and the
lack of a suitable guardian as insufficient official control. It is also important that
opportunity for the commission of misleading, abuse or even crime occur.
Opportunity is crucial in many deviant activities and can be related to a potential
victim (a consumer), routines (practices) or places (interactions).
296 E. Miovi et al.
Consumers also expect a wide range of competitively priced, highly processed
and convenient food products of consistently high quality. They expect it to be
fresh, good looking, nutritious, wholesome, tasty and it must be primarily and
absolutely safe. On the other hand, consumers have no direct means for the verifica-
tion of their expectancies and have to rely completely on the food legislators and
enforcement agencies (Anklam and Battaglia 2001). Consumers could be victims
of food poisoning, food adulteration and food frauds, misleading food content
(labelling), misleading indications, misleading descriptions, misleading pictures,
and food packaging (Jin and Kato 2004; Gibson and Taylor 2005; Tombs 2008;
Croall 2009). In todays technological age, a reactive response to the consumer
fraud is neither efficient nor effective (Holtfreter et al. 2005).
A guideline for consumer protection provides eight basic consumer rights inter-
preted from the food safety point of view (Harland 1987; Hogarth and English 2002):
The Right to Safety to be protected against threats that are hazardous to health
or life.
The Right to Information to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful or
grossly misleading information, advertising, labelling, or other practices and to
be given the facts s/he needs to make an informed choice.
The Right to Choose to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of
products and services at competitive prices: and in those industries where com-
petition is not workable and Government regulation is substituted, an assurance
of satisfactory quality and service at fair prices.
The Right to be heard to be assured that consumer interests will receive full
and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of Government policy, and fair
and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunals.
Consumers are privileged to have human rights. However, they come with certain
responsibilities too to seek, to evaluate and to use available information on products
and services in order to make healthier and better decisions. In case of exposure to
different chemicals in food, consumers know that food products consist of addi-
tives, but they do not know the quantity. Total intake is unknown, so how could
consumers be sure that the consumed food is safe? It is very important to consider
different sensitivities of populations, especially among infants and children.
16.3 Food Safety
The main challenge in the area of agriculture is to provide sufficient quantities of food,
which have to be of good quality and safe. Food production and food consumption are
the primary aspects of our lives and are therefore subject to our care. To achieve these
goals the agriculture and food industry has to use in their production different chemi-
cals such as pesticides and food additives. Without the use of chemicals the yields of
fields will reduce, food production and the earnings will be considerably smaller. With
using chemicals, the benefits are visible, but the risks are often invisible. Chemicals
can have negative effects on us and make us vulnerable (Beck 2001).
297 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
Safe food is food that is free not only from toxins, pesticides, chemical and physical
contaminants, but also from microbiological pathogens such as bacteria and
viruses that can cause illness (Golob and Jamnik 2004). There are main concerns
regarding food safety. Consuming food is a daily routine activity throughout lifetime.
It is very important that such food does not cause health risks to consumers. Possible
hazards in food are microorganisms, viruses, contaminants (toxins, heavy metals),
pesticides and other chemicals. Consumer could be concerned and afraid of such
hazards, but in many cases one does not know the exact quantity of exposure and
exact effect on his health. Therefore, it is very important to be aware of possibility of
invisible threats in food, especially because of the fact that all three elements from
RAT in the food safety area have been recognized. The food industry has a strong
motive to make profit and many opportunities to manage it. The food operators try to
convince consumers that they need their products. The food industry uses all sorts of
food additives, ingredients and advertising tactics to achieve better sales (Cheftel
2005). The food industry can also be involved in corporate crimes committed directly
against the consumers. Examples include the sale of unfit goods, the provision of
unfit services, false/illegal labelling or information, selling unsafe food, poisonings,
etc. (Jin and Kato 2004; Gibson and Taylor 2005; Tombs 2008; Croall 2009).
On the market, companies make money by providing goods to consumers, and
consumers pay for goods received. Consumers have the legal right to be protected
(Xu and Yuan 2009). The long-term health of consumers is also jeopardised by the
use of foods and other consumer products of a vast range of chemicals and other
substances that, while associated with long- term health risks, do not result in imme-
diate harm. While there is a growing public concern about the number of foods and
consumer issues, these facts have a lower political and governmental profile than the
occupational health and safety or the safety of the environment (Croall 2009).
The main authority concerns, regarding food safety, are to protect interests of
public health, interests of food producers (economic view) and the consumer interests
and their rights. It is not easy to make the right decision and to achieve all that goals
in practice at the same time. Recognizing possible invisible threats could assure better
consumer protection. Furthermore, knowing all the risks of invisible threats in the
food area help us to make corrective measures on time. These measures could make
the system for food safety more effective and give consumers better protection. The
big challenge in the area of food safety for consumer health is recognition of possible
invisible threats on time. This can help us to set up effective response regarding those
threats and risk assessment. Identifying all potential hazards that have to be assessed,
eliminating or reducing them to acceptable levels, are the most important activities
for achieving consumer protection, specially their basic right to safety.
16.3.1 Risk Analysis
Public health decisions on the plausible risks of chemical exposures can include several
possible outcomes. The ultimate goal is to implement a risk management action that
will produce the desired reduction of risk. A risk analysis paradigm is a formal
298 E. Miovi et al.
representation of a process that distinguishes the scientific bases from the risk
management objectives and generally contains a component where the probability of harm
is estimated. The overall risk analysis process includes risk assessment, risk manage-
ment and risk communication, and involves political, social economic and technical
considerations. Moreover, there is consensus among scientists that risk assessment
should be an independent scientific process, distinct from measures taken to control and
manage the risk. Risk assessors are responsible for scientific evaluation whether a
formal risk assessment is necessary or not (Benford 2001). As a probability calculation,
a risk assessment will include both a statement of the objective under consideration
(harm) and the basis for the assertion that the harm may occur (probability). Risk man-
agement is the decision-making process involving the consideration of political, social,
economic and technical factors with relevant risk assessment information relating to a
hazard so as to develop, analyse, select and implement appropriate risk mitigation
options. Risk management is comprised of three elements: risk evaluation, emission and
exposure control and risk monitoring (WHO 2004).
Risk management strategies may be regulatory, advisory or technological and
take into account factors such as the size of the exposed population, resources
required and available, costs of implementation and the scientific quality and cer-
tainty of the risk assessment. Risk managers are responsible for judgements con-
cerning the acceptability of risk; they have to weigh risk against other factors
including costs, benefit and social values, so called risk benefit approach.
Risk communication should include interactive exchange of information and
opinions among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers and all other interested
parties, often called stakeholders (Benford 2001).
16.3.1.1 Risk Assessment Exposure to the Chemicals in the Food
Risk is defined as the chance or probability of an adverse health effect occurring
and severity of that effect (Benford 2001). Risk assessment is a scientific process,
conducted by scientific experts, who may begin with a statement of purpose
intended to define the reasons that the risk assessment is required and support the
aims of the subsequent stages of risk management. Chemical risk assessment often
does not have a formal statement of purpose (Benford 2001). Generally, formal risk
assessments are preceeded by preliminary risk assessments. These are usually sub-
jective and informal and could be initiated from inside or outside the risk assess-
ment and scientific communities. A key consideration of these preliminary risk
assessments is whether a formal risk assessment is necessary or not (WHO 2004).
However, risk assessment could be defined implicitly in a generic form, as in the
terms of reference of an expert committee, such as Joint FAO/WHO or JECFA. In
this context, it concerns the definition of acceptable or tolerable levels of intake for
a chemical in food that may require review and revision in the light of new informa-
tion. It is a very important fact that risk assessment may need to be quantified dif-
ferently for persons with different degrees of susceptibility. Risk assessment for
chemical agents requires consideration of the factors mentioned before and these
299 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
are generally encompassed within the stages of the overall risk assessment process,
defined as hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment risk-
characterisation (Benford 2001).
Hazard identification is the process of identifying of the type and nature of
adverse health effects [human studies-epidemiology, animal based toxicology
studies, in-vitro toxicology studies, structure-activity studies (cell cultures, tissue
slices)]. Hazard characterization involves the derivation of a level of exposure at or
below which there would be no appreciable risk to health if the chemicals were to
be consumed daily throughout life. Exposure assessment is evaluation of concentra-
tion or amount of a particular agent that reaches a target population: magnitude,
frequency, duration, route, extent. Risk characterization is the stage of risk assess-
ment that integrates information from exposure assessment and risk characteriza-
tion into advice suitable for use in decision-making (Benford 2001).
The fact is that people could be exposed to different chemicals that pass from
environment to food such as contaminants, food additives, pesticides, heavy metals,
toxins, detergents etc. (De Muelenaer 2006). They could represent a threat to
humans, especially, because they are invisible. The vast majority of toxicity studies
and risk evaluations deal with single chemicals. In reality, people are exposed to
large numbers of chemicals via multiple routes (Feron and Groten 2002). So far,
possible effects of a mixture of all chemicals and interactions between them, so
called cocktail effect, have not been understood fully. Food additives are typically
used in combination within processed foods and therefore collectively may have
some adverse effects at the cellular level, even if their individual concentrations are
below the recommended acceptable daily intake (ADI) value (Lau et al. 2005).
The basic concept underlying any chemical risk assessment is the dose-response
relationship. As described by Paracelsus nearly 500 years ago, All substances are
poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison
and a remedy (Winter and Francis 1997). This means that any chemical substance
is likely to produce some form(s) of harmful effect, if taken in sufficient quantity.
Experts refer to a potential harmful effect as a hazard associated with that sub-
stance. The definition of hazard is a biological, chemical or physical agent with
the potential to cause an adverse health effect (Unnevehr 2003; Raspor 2004;
Armstrong 2009). While this may be appropriate with respect to pathogenic organ-
isms, chemical substances may be associated with a number of different adverse
health effects, not all of which would necessarily be expressed in a specific expo-
sure scenario. Therefore, experts dealing with chemical substances prefer to define
the potential health effects as individual hazards, which need to be considered sepa-
rately during the evaluation. The likelihood or risk of that hazard actually occurring
in humans is dependent upon the quantity of chemical encountered or taken into the
body, i.e. the exposure. The hazard is an inherent property of a chemical substance,
but if there is no exposure, then there is no risk that anyone will suffer because of
that hazard.
Risk assessment is the process of determining whether a particular hazard will
be expressed at a given exposure level, duration and timing within the life cycle,
and if so the magnitude of any risk is estimated (Benford 2001). Among the first
300 E. Miovi et al.
objectives of a risk assessment is the determination of the presence or absence of a
cause-effect relationship. If there is sufficient plausibility for the presence of such
a relationship, then dose-response modelling (DRM) information is needed.
The procedures used to estimate exposure to chemical contaminants in food are
essentially the same as those used for food additives (DiNovi and Kuznesof 2006).
Exposure assessment should cover the general population, as well as critical groups
that are vulnerable or are expected to have exposures that are significantly different
from those of the general population, for example infants, children, pregnant
women, or the elderly (WHO 2005).
16.3.1.2 Acceptable Daily Intake and Estimated Daily Intake of Food
Additives
The concept of the ADI is internationally accepted today as the basis for estimation
of safety of food additives and pesticides, for evaluation of contaminants and by this,
for legislation in the area of food and drinking water. The ADI (Tables 16.116.3) is
Table 16.1 Acceptance daily intake of preservatives and polyphosphates
Preservatives E number ADI (mg/kg bw/day)
Sorbic acid E 200 025 (JECFA
a
, 1973)
Bensoic acid E 210 05 (JECFA, 2002)
Nitrate E 251 03.7 (SCF
b
; JECFA 2002)
Nitrite E 250 00.07 (JECFA, 2002)
Sulphur dioxide E 220 00.7 (JECFA, 1973)
Polyphosphates (E 450-452) 070 (JECFA, 19822001)
a,

b
Acceptable daily intakes have been derived from toxicological studies
by the former EU Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and by the WHO/
FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants
Table 16.2 Acceptable daily intake of colours
Colours E number ADI (mg/kg bw/day)
Tartrazine E 102 07.5 (EFSA
a
, 2009)
Quinolyne yellow E 104 00.5 (EFSA, 2009)
Sunset yellow FCF E 110 01.0 temporary (EFSA, 2009)
Azorubine E 122 04 (EFSA, 2009)
Amaranth E 123 00.5 (JECFA, 1975)
Ponceau red 4R E 124 00.7 (EFSA, 2009)
Erythrosine E 127 00.1 (JECFA)
Allura red AC E 129 07 (EFSA, 2009)
Patent blue V E 131 01 (JECFA, 1969)
Brilliant Indigotine E 132 05 (JECFA, 1974)
Blue FCF E 133 012.5 (JECFA, 1969)
Brilliant black PN E 151 01 (JECFA, 1981)
a
European Food Safety Authority
301 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
an estimate of the amount of a food additive, expressed on a body weight basis that
can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk (WHO 1987).
Although ADI is derived from the safety assessment of each food additive,
their combined adverse effects are unclear and have not been widely studied.
Food additives are typically used in combination within processed foods and
therefore, collectively may have some adverse effects at the cellular level, even
if their individual concentrations are below the recommended ADI value (Lau
et al. 2005).
Dose response modelling (DRM), used as quantitative risk assessment tool for
public health recommendations about chemical exposures, can be described as a
six-step process. The first four steps-data selection, model selection, statistical
analyses, and parameter estimation-constitute doseresponse analysis. The fifth
step involves the integration of the results of the doseresponse analysis with esti-
mates of human exposure. The final step involves an assessment of the quality of
the doseresponse analysis and the sensitivity of model predictions to the assump-
tions used in the analysis.
Extrapolation is a fundamental problem in the quantitative health risk assessment
of exposure to chemicals that are toxic to human in experimental systems. Adverse
health effects of chemicals are, in the absence of human data, typically evaluated in
laboratory animals at significantly higher doses than the levels to which humans
may be exposed. Moreover, the data obtained in animals are very often misleading,
as the animals used usually do not respond to the toxic compounds in the same way
as humans (WHO 2004).
The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is used widely to describe safe levels of
intake; other terms that are used are the reference dose (RfD) and tolerable intakes
that are expressed on either a daily (TDI or tolerable daily intake) or weekly basis.
The weekly designation is used to stress the importance of limiting intake over a
period of time for such substances (Herman and Younes 1999).
In order to calculate an ADI using the data from toxicity studies, the lowest dose
should ideally result in no effects under the conditions of the particular study. That
dose may be termed as the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL). Observed effects are
referred to because assumptions cannot be made about effects not detectable by the
methods used. Some effects observed in toxicity studies may represent adaptive
responses with no implications for the health status of the animal and would generally
not be used as the basis for establishing an ADI. Effects that are considered to result
in harm to the animal are referred to as adverse, and therefore some expert com-
mittees use the expression No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) (Benford
2001). When using this approach no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) are
Table 16.3 Acceptable daily intake of sweeteners
Sweeteners E number ADI (mg/kg bw/day)
Saccharin E 954 05 (JECFA, 1993)
Cyclamate E 952 011 (JECFA, 1982)
Acesulfame K E 950 015 (JECFA, 1990)
Aspartame E 951 040 (JECFA, 1981)
302 E. Miovi et al.
identified in the critical studies, to which appropriate safety or uncertainty factors
are applied. Although the value of safety factors varies depending upon a number
of factors, 100 is most often used, which is designed to account for interspecies and
interspecies variations (Herman and Younes 1999).
ADI = NOAEL/100
Estimated daily intake (EDI) is value of chemical exposure, which can be deter-
mined by combining food consumption data with data on the concentration of addi-
tives in food.
The resulting dietary exposure estimate is afterwards compared with the relevant
toxicological or nutritional reference value for the food additive concern, for example
acceptable daily intake (ADI) or tolerable daily intake (TDI) (WHO 2005). Usually
EDI is expressed as percentage of value of ADI for each food additive.
If EDI is lower or the same as ADI, there is no concern regarding such exposure
and we can assume that food additive intake among the observed population repre-
sent no risk. If EDI is higher or the same as ADI, than exact risk assessment should
be done on a case-by-case base, and risk managers should decide and take effective
measurements.
16.4 Example of Risk Assessment Among Preschool Children
in Slovenia
The purpose of research was to assess if food additives intake could be a possible
threat to the health of preschool children. It is assumed that intake of each food
additive separately could not be so high or greater than ADI. However, the total
intake of all food additives per day is unknown. It is assumed that higher exposure
to food additives is in relation to appearance with possible harm reactions among
observed children. In the first place, it is necessary to find out the exact exposure
to food intake and consumed food additives: preservatives, polyphosphates, sweet-
eners and colours as they shown in Figs. 16.1 and 16.2.
16.4.1 Methodology
16.4.1.1 Observed Population
Among randomly selected regions in Slovenia, we selected kindergartens and
all children aged 26 years. Initially, the study included 250 children, representing all
children of one section of selected kindergartens. Due to incomplete data, 60 cases
were excluded from analysis. Therefore, the total number of children used in this
study were 190, 98 boys and 92 girls. Anthropometric measurements of experimen-
tal children groups were conducted as for example data regarding their age and
gender, weight and height. In the selected group, boys and girls were divided into
two groups regarding their age: 23.9 years and 3.96 years.
303 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
16.4.1.2 Food Consumption Data
The dietary intake is generally based on the 3-day-weighed record method in the
kindergartens and food diary at homes. In the kindergartens subject to the research,
we have weighed quantities of individual foods and dishes, randomly chosen and
Fig. 16.1 Food intake among observed children
Fig. 16.2 Intake of food additives: preservatives, polyphosphates, colours and sweeteners
304 E. Miovi et al.
offered to the observed children. Data were calculated by average day and body
weight of each child included into research.
Food intake (g) = food offered (g) waste food on the plate (g)
From these data, we have obtained the exact amount of food eaten by each child
in three days. Specific types of food it has divided regarding to their characteristics
in the following categories as shown Table 16.4. It was considered those food cat-
egories in a particular food or otherwise adds any additives, which are the subject
of our research. These are mainly processed industrially prepared food.
16.4.1.3 Estimated Daily Intake of Food Additives
Food additives set in Tables 16.116.3 are included in the research. These are pre-
servatives: sorbic acid (E 200), benzoic acid (E 210), nitrate (E 251), nitrite (E 250),
sulphur dioxide (E 220); emulsifiers: polyphosphates (E 450-452); sweeteners:
cyclamate (E 952), saccharin (E 954), aspartame (E 951), acesulfame K (E 950) and
colours: tartrazine (E 102), quinoline yellow (E 104), sunset yellow FCF (E 110),
azorubine (E 122), amaranth (E 123), ponceau red 4R (E 124), erythrosine (E 127),
allura red AC (E 129), patent blue V (E 131), brilliant indigotyne (E 132), brilliant
blue FCF (E 133), brilliant black PN (E 151).
To estimate the daily intake of food additives we had to combine food consump-
tion data with data on the concentration of additives in food. Calculation of the
average daily consumption of specific groups of food per body weight for each
child was made. The data from databases obtained from the official control and
monitoring on food additives content in different food categories were used.
EDI = food additive concentration x food consumption per body weight
To calculate how much of each additive, the children daily ingested per kg
body weight, food additives were added together, equal and shared with the
childs body weight expressed in kg and thus received the additive value in mg/kg
body weight.
Table 16.4 Food categories
Food category Food product
Non-alcoholic
beverages
Coca-cola, ice-tea
Fat spreads Margarine, butter
Bakery products Bread, cookies, pastry
Fruit products Dried fruits, jams, candied fruits
Confectionary products Chocolate like products, cream
cakes, milk cakes
Meat products Salami, pate, hot-dogs
Snacks Salty snacks
305 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
16.4.1.4 Comparison Between ADI and EDI
To assess safety of food additives exposure, we compare acceptable daily intake
(ADI) of each food additive with estimated daily intake (EDI). The estimated daily
intake (EDI) of each additive is acceptable and safe if its value is lower or the same
as ADI. To determine safety assessment among observed children EDI was com-
pared with ADI, and expressed in percentage of ADI.
16.4.2 Results
16.4.2.1 Food Consumption Data
Estimated dietary intake of food is the first important data for making successful
assessment of exposure to any agent in the food (Fig. 16.1). The most eaten food
categories among observed children are milk products and bakery products. Dietary
intake of non-alcoholic beverages, meat products and confectionary products is not
so high than consumption of milk and bakery products.
16.4.2.2 Estimated Daily Intake of Food Additives
From results of analytical tests from official control, we can calculate how much
exactly consumed food contains each food additive. All additives were divided into
group of preservatives and polyphosphates, sweeteners and colours. The conclusion
is that observed children eat more preservatives and polyphosphates than sweeteners
and colours. As Fig. 16.2 shows, the higher intake of food additives expressed in
mg/kg body weight, are among older children, 46 years old girls.
16.4.2.3 Results of Comparison Between EDI and ADI of Each Group
of Food Additives
Results of safety assessment regarding relation between EDI and ADI of food addi-
tive show that intake of each group of additive is acceptable and safe. Figure 16.3
presents estimated daily intake of sweeteners EDI expressed as percentage of
ADI. The average exposure to sweeteners does not achieve 1% of ADI. Average
exposure to colours reaches very low values from 0 to 1,1% ADI. It is interesting
that average exposure to preservatives and polyphosphates (EDI) achieves almost
30% of ADI. It is obvious that the higher exposure among food additives belongs
to preservatives and polyphosphates. It could be concluded that basic food products
that are eaten very often by children (few times a day) contain preservatives and
polyphosphates. Such food products are bakery products, meat products and fruit
products.
306 E. Miovi et al.
Regarding exposure to different sweeteners as Fig. 16.3 shows, the highest
intake is intake of cyclamate, intake of aspartame is the lowest. Neither one average
exposure of sweetener exceeds 1% ADI. Exposure to sweeteners is very low and
only cyclamate is consumed by almost all groups of children.
Figure 16.4 presents EDIADI relationship of preservatives and polyphosphates.
It is evident that average exposure to nitrites and sulphite dioxide is relatively high,
Fig. 16.3 EDIADI relationship of sweeteners
Fig. 16.4 EDIADI relationship of preservatives and polyphosphates
307 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
the highest among older children. Intake of benzoic acid, sorbic acid, nitrates and
polyphosphates is not so high. In compare to sweeteners and colours, the highest
level of exposure belongs to preservatives and polyphosphates.
Figure 16.5 presents intakes of food colours expressed as EDIADI relationship.
Exposure to colours among observed children are low. It is apparent that intake
among older children is higher especially for erythrosine (E 127) and quinoline
yellow (E 104). Such average exposure (around 1% of ADI) is very low and does
not represent risk for observed children.
16.5 Conclusion
The human health risk assessment of food constituents is an internationally agreed
and well-established process, being an integral part of the risk analysis process,
which also includes risk management and risk communication. These three elements
are separate tasks, performed by different player, and are parts of an interactive
process.
The risk assessment of chemicals in food is a purely scientific process that
requires expertise in toxicology, nutrition and exposure assessment. The risk man-
agement includes an identification of the food safety problem, consideration of its
magnitude, seriousness, and consequently the way of handling it. In this process,
the risk manager may include cost-benefit considerations before deciding how to
manage the case (ban the compound, introduce limitations, provide specific dietary
advice or accept the status quo). Finally, the risk analysis has to include a clear and
interactive risk communication with consumers, industry and other stakeholders.
In this contribution an example of risk assessment is presented, special exposure
assessment of food additives among preschool children. In research 190 children
Fig. 16.5 EDIADI relationship of colours
308 E. Miovi et al.
were included, 92 girls and 98 boys, aged 26 years. It is apparent that such exposure
does not present any harm or threat to observed children, regarding comparison
between estimated daily intake (EDI) and acceptable daily intake (ADI) of each
food additive.
Other question is the total intake of all food additives daily consumed by
observed children: preservatives, polyphosphates, sweeteners and colours together.
It is the fact that acceptable daily intakes for sum of food additives have not been
set yet. As we can see from results, exposure to preservatives and polyphosphates
is the highest among all observed food additives.
We strongly believe that future study should lead to exposure assessments of
mixture of chemicals and interactive influence among them. We must not forget,
that children are vulnerable and the most sensitive population and could become
victims of invisible threats.
References
Anklam E, Battaglia R (2001) Food analysis and consumer protection. Trends Food Sci Technol
12(56):197202
Armstrong DJ (2009) Food chemistry and U.S. food regulations. J Agric Food Chem
57(18):81808186
Beck U (2001) Critical theory of world risk society: a cosmopolitan vision. Constellations
16(1):3
Benford D (2001) Principles of risk assessment of food and drinking water related to human
health. International Life Sciences Institute, ILSI, Washington, DC
Buchanan RL, Dennis S, Miliotis M (2004) Initiating and managing risk assessments within a risk
analysis framework: FDA/CFSANS practical approach. J Food Prot 67(9):20582062
Cheftel JC (2005) Food and nutrition labelling in the European Union. Food Chem
93(3):531550
Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate change: a routine activity approach.
Am Sociol Rev 44(August):588608
Croall H (2009) White-collar crime, consumer and victimization. Crime Law Soc Change
51(1):127146
De Muelenaer B (2006) Chemical hazards. In: Luning PA, Devlieghere F, Verh R (eds) Safety in
the agri-food chain. Academic, Waggeningen, pp 145209
DiNovi MJ, Kuznesof PM (2006) Estimating exposure to direct food additives and chemical con-
taminants in the diet. Office of Premarket Approval, Center for food safety & Applied
Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Washington, DC
FAO/WHO (2002) Pan European conference on food safety and quality: final report. FAO/WHO,
Rome
Feron VJ, Groten JP (2002) Toxicological evaluation of chemical mixtures. Food Chem Toxicol
40(6):852839
Gibson JE, Taylor DA (2005) Can claims, misleading information, and manufacturing issues
regarding dietary supplements be improved in the United States. J Pharmacol Exp Ther
314(3):939944
Golob T, Jamnik M (2004) Vloga senzorine analize pri zagotavljanju varnosti ivil. (Eng. The role
of sensory analysis in ensuring food safety). In: Gaperlin L, lender B (eds) Varnost ivil/22.
Bitenevi ivilski dnevi. Biotehnika fakulteta, Oddelek za ivilstvo, Ljubljana, pp 101115
Gregory PJ, Ingram JSI, Brklacich M (2005) Climate change and food security. Philos Trans R
Soc Biol Sci 360(1463):21392148
309 16 Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food for Public Health Protection
Harland D (1987) The United Nations guidelines for consumer protection. J Consum Policy
10(3):254266
Heines A, McMichael AJ, Epstein RR (2000) Environmental and health: 2. Global climate change
and health. Can Med Assoc J 163(6):729734
Herman JL, Younes M (1999) Background to the ADI/TDI/PTWI. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol
30(2):109113
Hogarth JM, English MP (2002) Consumer complaints and redress: an important mechanism for
protecting and empowering consumers. Int J Consum Stud 26(3):217226
Holtfreter K, Van Slyke S, Blomberg TG (2005) Social change in consumer fraud: from victim-
offender interactions to global networks. Crime Law Soc Change 44(3):251275
Jin GZ, Kato A (2004) Consumer frauds and the uninformed: evidence from an online field
experiment. Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park
Kennedy JF (1962) Special message on protecting the consumer interest statement read by
President John F. Kennedy Thursday, 15 March 1962. Resource document. http://www.con-
sumersinternational.org/shared_asp_files/uploadedfiles/4F4F223B-73E3-4F19-85C6-
E705AD922376_kennedy.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2008
Kleter GA, Marvin HJP (2009) Indicators of emerging hazards and risks to food safety. Food
Chem Toxicol 47(5):10221039
Lau K, McLean WG, Williams DP, Howard CV (2005) Synergistic interactions between com-
monly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Toxicol Sci 90(1):178187
Mack A, Schmitz T, Schulze Althoff G, Devlieghere F, Petersen B (2006) Steps in the risk man-
agement process. In: Luning PA, Devlieghere F, Verh R (eds) Safety in the agri-food chain.
Academic, Wageningen, pp 355397
McMichael AJ, Haines A, Slooff R, Kovats S (1996) Climate change and human health. WHO,
Geneva
Myers SS, Patz JA (2009) Emerging threats to human health from global environmental change.
Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:223252
Newburn T (2007) Criminology. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon
Raspor P (2004) Sedanji pogled na varnost ivil (Eng. Present view about the food safety). In:
Gaperlin L, lender B (eds) Varnost ivil/22. Bitenevi ivilski dnevi. Biotehnika fakulteta,
Oddelek za ivilstvo, Ljubljana, pp 114
Teuschler LK, Hertzberg RC (1995) Current and future risk assessment guidelines, policy, and
methods development for chemical mixtures. Toxicology 105(23):137144
Tombs S (2008) Corporations and health and safety. In: Minkes J, Minkes L (eds) Corporate and
white-collar crime. Sage, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore, pp 1838
Unnevehr LJ (2003) Food safety in food security and food trade. In: Unnevehr LJ (ed) 2020 Focus
10: food safety in food security and food trade. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC, pp 12
Vanderlinden L, Cooper K, Sahni V, Campbell M (2005) Environmental threats to children.
Toronto Public Health, Environmental Protection Office, Toronto
WHO (1987) Principles for the safety assessment of food additives and contaminants in food.
Environmental Health Criteria No. 70. WHO, Geneva
WHO (2004) Principles for modelling dose-response for the risk assessment of chemicals.
International programme on chemical safety. WHO, Geneva
WHO (2005) Dietary exposure assessment of chemicals in Food. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO
Consultation Annapolis. WHO, Maryland
Winter CK, Francis FJ (1997) Assessing, managing and communicating chemical food risks. Food
Technol 51(5):8592
WMO (2007) Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate change 2007: impacts, adapta-
tion and vulnerability, summary for policy makers. IPCC secretariat, c/o WMO, Geneva
Xu Z, Yuan Y (2009) Principle-based dispute resolution for consumer protection. Knowl-Based
Syst 22(1):1827
Zakon o varstvu potronikov [ZVPot-UPB2] (2004) (Eng. Consumer Protection Act). Uradni list
Republike Slovenije, t. 98/2004, 46/2006, 126/2007, 86/2009