R. Crevel

The prevalence, cost and basis of food allergy across Europe

The development of effective management strategies to optimize the quality of life for allergic patients is currently hampered by a lack of good quality information. Estimates of how many individuals suffer from food allergy and the major foods involved vary widely and inadequacies of in vitro diagnostics make food challenges the only reliable means of diagnosis in many instances. The EuroPrevall project brings together a multidisciplinary partnership to address these issues. Cohorts spanning the main climatic regions of Europe are being developed in infants through a birth cohort, community surveys in school‐age children and adults and an outpatient clinic study. Confirmatory double‐blind placebo‐controlled food challenge diagnosis is being undertaken using foods as they are eaten with titrated doses to allow no‐effect and lowest‐observable effect levels for allergenic foods to be determined. The cohorts will also facilitate validation of novel in vitro diagnostics through the development of the EuroPrevall Serum Bank. Complementary studies in Ghana, western Siberia, India and China will allow us to gain insights into how different dietary patterns and exposure to microorganisms affect food allergies. New instruments to assess the socioeconomic impact of food allergy are being developed in the project and their application in the clinical cohorts will allow, for the first time, an assessment to be made of the burden this disease places on allergy sufferers and their communities.

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.

Thresholds for food allergens and their value to different stakeholders

Thresholds constitute a critical piece of information in assessing the risk from allergenic foods at both the individual and population levels. Knowledge of the minimum dose that can elicit a reaction is of great interest to all food allergy stakeholders. For allergic individuals and health professionals, individual threshold data can inform allergy management. Population thresholds can help both the food industry and regulatory authorities assess the public health risk and design appropriate food safety objectives to guide risk management. Considerable experience has been gained with the double‐blind placebo‐controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), but only recently has the technique been adapted to provide data on thresholds. Available data thus vary greatly in quality, with relatively few studies providing the best quality individual data, using the low‐dose DBPCFC. Such high quality individual data also form the foundation for population thresholds, but these also require, in addition to an adequate sample size, a good characterization of the tested population in relation to the whole allergic population. Determination of thresholds at both an individual level and at a population level is influenced by many factors. This review describes a low‐dose challenge protocol developed as part of the European Community‐funded Integrated Project Europrevall, and strongly recommends its wider use so that data are generated that can readily increase the power of existing studies.

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.

Information provision for allergic consumers – where are we going with food allergen labelling?

As the current treatment for food allergy involves dietary exclusion of the problem food, information for food‐allergic consumers provided on food labels about the nature of allergenic ingredients is important to the management of their condition. The members of an EU‐funded networking project, InformAll, focusing on developing strategies for the provision of credible, reliable sources of information for food allergy sufferers, regulators and the food industry, have been considering these matters with respect to food labelling. This paper presents an overview of the genesis of the new EU directive on food labelling, its relevance to food‐allergic consumers and the problems that might arise if precautionary labelling becomes more widespread in response to concerns regarding inadvertent allergen contamination in foods. International efforts to define threshold levels of allergens able to trigger a reaction coupled with validated allergen detection methods are essential if the food industry is to implement effective hazard control procedures and address the problems of cross‐contact allergens without devaluing the information provided to consumers on food labels.

Approaches to risk assessment in food allergy: Report from a workshop ‘‘developing a framework for assessing the risk from allergenic foods” ☆

A workshop was organised to investigate whether risk assessment strategies and methodologies used in classical/conventional toxicology may be used for risk assessment of allergenic foods, to discuss the advantages and limitations of different approaches and to determine the research needed to move the area forward. Three possible approaches to safety assessment and risk assessment for allergenic foods were presented and discussed: safety assessment using NOAEL/LOAEL and uncertainty factors, safety assessment using Benchmark Dose and Margin of Exposure (MoE), and risk assessment using probabilistic models. The workshop concluded that all the three approaches to safety and risk assessment of allergenic foods should continue to be considered. A particular strength of the MoE and probabilistic approaches is that they do not rely on low-dose extrapolations with its inherent issues. Probabilistic modelling is considered to be the most promising approach for use in population risk assessment (which is a particular focus for risk managers). For all approaches, further improvement of input data is desirable, particularly data on consumption patterns/food choices in food allergic consumers, data on minimum eliciting doses and data that can be used to evaluate whether the whole population at risk has been modelled accurately. Specific research topics were identified.

Can we define a tolerable level of risk in food allergy? Report from a EuroPrevall/UK Food Standards Agency workshop.

There is an emerging consensus that, as with other risks in society, zero risk for food‐allergic people is not a realistic or attainable option. Food allergy challenge data and new risk assessment methods offer the opportunity to develop quantitative limits for unintended allergenic ingredients which can be used in risk‐based approaches. However, a prerequisite to their application is defining a tolerable level of risk. This requires a value judgement and is ultimately a ‘societal’ decision that has to involve all relevant stakeholders.

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.