Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:49:58.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Allergenic potential of novel foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2007

Clive Meredith
Affiliation:
BIBRA International Ltd, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 4DS, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Concerns have been expressed that the introduction of novel foods into the diet might lead to the development of new food allergies in consumers. Novel foods can be conveniently divided into GM and non-GM categories. Decision-tree approaches (e.g. International Life Sciences Institute-International Food Biotechnology Council and WHO/FAO) to assess the allergenic potential of GM foods were developed following the discovery, during product development, of the allergenic potential of GM soyabean expressing a gene encoding a storage protein from Brazil nut (Bertolletia excelsa). Within these decision trees considerations include: the source of the transgene; amino acid homology with known allergens; cross-reactivity with IgE from food-allergic individuals; resistance to proteolysis; prediction using animal models of food allergy. Such decision trees are under constant review as new knowledge and improved models emerge, but they provide a useful framework for the assessment of the allergenic potential of GM foods. For novel non-GM foods the assessment of allergenic potential is more subjective; some foods or food ingredients will need no assessment other than a robust protein assay to demonstrate the absence of protein. Where protein is present in the novel non-GM food, hazard and risk assessments need to be made in terms of the quantity of protein that might be consumed, the identity of individual protein components and their relationships to known food allergens. Where necessary, this assessment would extend to serum screening for potential cross-reactivities, skin-prick tests in previously-sensitised individuals and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges.

Type
Symposium on ‘Reacting to allergy’
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2005

References

Bannon, G, Fu, TJ, Kimber, I & Hinton, DM (2003) Protein digestibility and relevance to allergenicity. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 11221124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bindslev-Jensen, C, Briggs, D & Osterballe, M (2002) Can we determine a threshold for allergenic foods by statistical analysis of published data in the literature? Allergy 57, 741746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, SA & Atkins, FM (1990) Patterns of food hypersensitivity during sixteen years of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Journal of Pediatrics 117, 561567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Certain Companies; Approval of Pesticide Product Registrations. Federal Register 63, 4393643937; available at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1998/August/Day-17/p22011.htm.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (2000) EPA preliminary evaluation of information contained in the October 25, 2000 submission from Aventis CropScience. Executive summary. http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (2001) White Paper on the possible presence of Cry9c protein in processed human foods made from food fractions produced through the wet milling of corn. http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/2001/july/wetmilling.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission (1997) Regulation EC 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Official Journal of the European Communities L43, 17.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (2004) Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_guidance/660/guidance_docfinal1.pdf.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (1995) Report of the FAO Technical Consultation on Food Allergies. Rome:FAO.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (2001) FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods Rome:FAO.Google Scholar
Hileman, RE, Silvanovich, A, Goodman, RE, Rice, EA, Holleschak, G, Astwood, JD & Hefle, SL (2002) Bioinformatic methods for allergenicity assessment using a comprehensive allergen database. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 128, 280291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Informall EU Project (2005) Informall database on allergenic foods. http://foodallergens.ifr.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
will evolve as the state of the knowledge on the International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (2001) Allergenicity Assessment for Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Crops, Washington, DC: ILSI HESI.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D, Astwood, J, Townsend, R, Sampson, H, Taylor, S & Fuchs, R (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 36, Suppl., S165S186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordlee, J, Taylor, S, Townsend, J, Thomas, L & Bush, R (1996) Identification of a Brazil-Nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine 334, 688692.Google Scholar
Scheurer, S, Wangorsch, A, Nerkamp, J, Skov, PS, Ballmer-Weber, B, Wuthrich, B, Haustein, D & Vieths, S (2001) Cross-reactivity within the profilin panallergen family investigated by comparison of recombinant profilins from pear (Pyr c 4), cherry (Pru av 4) and celery (Api g 4) with birch pollen profilin Bet v 2. Journal of Chromatography 756, 315325.Google Scholar
Young, E, Stoneham, MD, Petruckevitch, A, Barton, J & Rona, R (1994) A population study of food intolerance. Lancet i, 11271130.Google Scholar