Joseph L. Baumert

Establishment of Reference Doses for residues of allergenic foods: Report of the VITAL Expert Panel

In 2011, an expert panel was assembled to establish appropriate Reference Doses for allergenic food residues as a part of the VITAL (Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labeling) program of The Allergen Bureau of Australia & New Zealand (ABA). These Reference Doses would guide advisory labeling decisions for use on food labels. Individual NOAELs and LOAELs were obtained from clinical challenges of food-allergic subjects. Statistical dose-distribution models (log-normal, log-logistic, Weibull) were applied to the individual NOAELs and LOAELs for each allergenic food. The Reference Doses, in terms of mg of total protein from the allergenic food, were based upon either the ED01 (for peanut, cows milk), the 95% lower confidence interval of the ED05 (for wheat, soybean, cashew, shrimp, sesame seed, mustard, and lupine), or both (egg, hazelnut) using all appropriate statistical dose-distribution models. Reference Doses were established for 11 allergenic foods ranging from 0.03 mg for egg protein to 10mg for shrimp protein. Reference Doses were not established for fish or celery due to poor model fits with existing data. Reference Doses were not established for other tree nuts beyond hazelnut and cashew because of the absence of data on NOAELs and LOAELs from individual subjects.

Threshold dose for peanut: risk characterization based upon diagnostic oral challenge of a series of 286 peanut-allergic individuals.

Clinical records of 286 consecutive patients reacting positively with objective symptoms to double-blind, placebo-controlled oral peanut challenges at University Hospital, Nancy, France were examined for individual No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs). After fitting to a log-normal probability distribution model, the ED(10) and ED(05) were 14.4 and 7.3mg (expressed as whole peanut), respectively, with 95% lower confidence intervals of 10.7 and 5.2mg, respectively. Compared to results from a previous study where the ED(10) was based upon individual peanut thresholds gleaned from 12 publications, a statistically significant difference was observed between the ED(50)s, but not the ED(10)s of the two probability distribution curves. The Nancy patient group contains more sensitive subjects than the group from the published literature thus contributing to the observed differences. Minimum eliciting dose-distributions for patients with histories of more severe reactions (grade 4 or 5; 40 subjects) did not differ significantly from those of patients with histories of less severe reactions (grades 1-3; 123 subjects). These data and this modeling approach could be used to establish population thresholds for peanut-allergic consumers and thereby provide a sound basis for allergen control measures in the food industry.

Threshold dose for peanut: risk characterization based upon published results from challenges of peanut-allergic individuals.

Population thresholds for peanut are unknown. However, lowest- and no-observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs and NOAELs) are published for an unknown number of peanut-allergic individuals. Publications were screened for LOAELs and NOAELs from blinded, low-dose oral challenges. Data were obtained from 185 peanut-allergic individuals (12 publications). Data were analyzed by interval-censoring survival analysis and three probability distribution models fitted to it (Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull) to estimate the ED(10). All three models described the data well and provided ED(10)s in close agreement: 17.6, 17.0, and 14.6 mg of whole peanut for the Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull models, respectively. The 95% lower confidence intervals for the ED(10)s were 9.2, 8.1, and 6.0mg of whole peanut for the Log-Normal, Log-Logistic, and Weibull models, respectively. The modeling of individual NOAELs and LOAELs identified from three different types of published studies - diagnostic series, threshold studies, and immunotherapy trials - yielded significantly different whole peanut ED(10)s of 11.9 mg for threshold studies, 18.0mg for diagnostic series and 65.5mg for immunotherapy trials; patient selection and other biases may have influenced the estimates. These data and risk assessment models provide the type of information that is necessary to establish regulatory thresholds for peanut.

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 cows 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.

Anaphylaxis from Passive Transfer of Peanut Allergen in a Blood Product

Anaphylactic transfusion reactions from passive transfer of IgE have been documented, but a case is now reported in which the eliciting factor was a food allergen in peanuts ingested by blood donors before donation.

Precautionary allergen labelling: perspectives from key stakeholder groups

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the possibility of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. However, in its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies. This review aims to summarize the perspectives of all the key stakeholders (including clinicians, patients, food industry and regulators), with the aim of defining common health protection and risk minimization goals. The lack of agreed reference doses has resulted in inconsistent application of PAL by the food industry and in levels of contamination that prompt withdrawal action by enforcement officers. So there is a poor relationship between the presence or absence of PAL and actual reaction risk. This has led to a loss of trust in PAL, reducing the ability of consumers with food allergies to make informed choices. The result has been reduced avoidance, reduced quality of life and increased risk‐taking by consumers who often ignore PAL. All contributing stakeholders agree that PAL must reflect actual risk. PAL should be transparent and consistent with rules underpinning decision‐making process being communicated clearly to all stakeholders. The use of PAL should indicate the possible, unintended presence of an allergen in a consumed portion of a food product at or above any proposed action level. This will require combined work by all stakeholders to ensure everyone understands the approach and its limitations. Consumers with food allergy then need to be educated to undertake individualized risk assessments in relation to any PAL present.

Can we identify patients at risk of life‐threatening allergic reactions to food?

Anaphylaxis has been defined as a ‘severe, life‐threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction’. However, data indicate that the vast majority of food‐triggered anaphylactic reactions are not life‐threatening. Nonetheless, severe life‐threatening reactions do occur and are unpredictable. We discuss the concepts surrounding perceptions of severe, life‐threatening allergic reactions to food by different stakeholders, with particular reference to the inclusion of clinical severity as a factor in allergy and allergen risk management. We review the evidence regarding factors that might be used to identify those at most risk of severe allergic reactions to food, and the consequences of misinformation in this regard. For example, a significant proportion of food‐allergic children also have asthma, yet almost none will experience a fatal food‐allergic reaction; asthma is not, in itself, a strong predictor for fatal anaphylaxis. The relationship between dose of allergen exposure and symptom severity is unclear. While dose appears to be a risk factor in at least a subgroup of patients, studies report that individuals with prior anaphylaxis do not have a lower eliciting dose than those reporting previous mild reactions. It is therefore important to consider severity and sensitivity as separate factors, as a highly sensitive individual will not necessarily experience severe symptoms during an allergic reaction. We identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to improve our ability to better identify those most at risk of severe food‐induced allergic reactions.

Development and evolution of risk assessment for food allergens

The need to assess the risk from food allergens derives directly from the need to manage effectively this food safety hazard. Work spanning the last two decades dispelled the initial thinking that food allergens were so unique that the risk they posed was not amenable to established risk assessment approaches and methodologies. Food allergens possess some unique characteristics, which make a simple safety assessment approach based on the establishment of absolute population thresholds inadequate. Dose distribution modelling of MEDs permitted the quantification of the risk of reaction at the population level and has been readily integrated with consumption and contamination data through probabilistic risk assessment approaches to generate quantitative risk predictions. This paper discusses the strengths and limitations of this approach and identifies important data gaps, which affect the outcomes of these predictions. These include consumption patterns among allergic individuals, analytical techniques and their application, severity-dose relationships, and the impact of extraneous factors which alter an individuals physiology, such as infection or exercise. Nevertheless, application of these models has provided valuable insights, leading to further refinements and generating testable hypotheses. Their application to estimate the risk posed by the concurrent consumption of two potentially contaminated foods illustrates their power.

Cross-Contamination of Foods and Implications for Food Allergic Patients

Cross-contamination presents a risk of unknown magnitude for food allergic consumers. Published cases likely represent the tip of a rather large iceberg. Cross-contamination can occur in homes, restaurants, food manufacturing plants, and on farms. The frequency of cross-contamination as the cause of accidental exposures to allergenic foods is unknown. Food allergic individuals can react to ingestion of trace levels of the offending food, although a highly variable range of threshold doses exist among populations of food allergic individuals. The magnitude of the risk posed to food allergic consumers by cross-contamination is characterized by the frequency of exposure to cross-contaminated foods, the dose of exposure, and the individual’s threshold dose. The food and food service industry (and food preparers in homes as well) have the responsibility to provide and prepare foods that are safe for food allergic consumers, but quality of life may be improved with the recognition that safe (though very low) thresholds do exist.

Unintended allergens in precautionary labelled and unlabelled products pose significant risks to UK allergic consumers.

Allergens in food may pose a risk to allergic consumers. While there is EU regulation for allergens present as an ingredient, this is not the case for unintended allergen presence (UAP). Food companies use precautionary allergen labels to inform allergic individuals of a potential risk from UAPs. This study investigates the risk of an allergic reaction within the milk‐, wheat‐, hazelnut‐ and peanut‐allergic populations when ingesting UK foods across multiple product categories with and without precautionary allergen labelling.