Looking beyond borders: integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition

Risk–Benefit assessment of foods: Development of a methodological framework for the harmonized selection of nutritional, microbiological, and toxicological components

Investigating the impact of diet on public health using risk–benefit assessment (RBA) methods that simultaneously consider both beneficial and adverse health outcomes could be useful for shaping dietary policies and guidelines. In the field of food safety and nutrition, RBA is a relatively new approach facing methodological challenges and being subject to further developments. One of the methodological aspects calling for improvement is the selection of components to be considered in the assessment, currently based mainly on non-harmonized unstandardized experts’ judgment. Our aim was to develop a harmonized, transparent, and documented methodological framework for selecting nutritional, microbiological, and toxicological RBA components. The approach was developed under the Novel foods as red meat replacers—an insight using Risk-Benefit Assessment methods (NovRBA) case study, which attempted to estimate the overall health impact of replacing red meat with an edible insect species, Acheta domesticus. Starting from the compositional profiles of both food items, we created a “long list” of food components. By subsequently applying a series of predefined criteria, we proceeded from the “long” to the “short list.” These criteria were established based on the occurrence and severity of health outcomes related to these components. For nutrition and microbiology, the occurrence of health outcomes was evaluated considering the presence of a component in the raw material, as well as the effect of processing on the respective component. Regarding toxicology, the presence and exposure relative to reference doses and the contribution to total exposure were considered. Severity was graded with the potential contribution to the background diet alongside bioavailability aspects (nutrition), the disability-adjusted life years per case of illness of each hazard (microbiology), and disease incidence in the population, potential fatality, and lifelong disability (toxicology). To develop the “final list” of components, the “short list” was refined by considering the availability and quality of data for a feasible inclusion in the RBA model. The methodology developed can be broadly used in food RBA, to guide and reinforce a harmonized selection of nutritional, microbiological, and toxicological components and will contribute to facilitating RBA implementation, enabling the generation of transparent, robust, and comparable outcomes.

Increasing Seaweed Consumption in the Netherlands and Portugal and the Consequences for the Intake of Iodine, Sodium, and Exposure to Chemical Contaminants: A Risk-Benefit Study

Background: Seaweed has a high potential for nourishing the future planet. However, besides being beneficial, it also contains adverse components; this poses the question whether consumption of seaweed foods overall contributes beneficially or detrimentally to human health, and hence if their consumption should be promoted or restricted. Methods: This study evaluated the impact of substituting regular foods with seaweed foods in the diet, both in terms of nutritional quality (via iodine and sodium) and food safety (via arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury). Food consumption data from the Netherlands and Portugal (adults aged >18 years) were used, in which 10% of the amounts of pasta, bacon, and lettuce consumed were replaced by seaweed-derived products made from kelp (Saccharina latissima). Using Monte Carlo Risk Assessment software (MCRA), long-term nutrient intake and exposure to contaminants were assessed. The results obtained for the Netherlands and Portugal were compared with data from Japan, a country that has a high natural consumption of seaweed. Results: This low-tier risk-benefit study reveals that an increased seaweed consumption (as assessed by the 10% replacement with seaweed products) has no consequences in terms of intake of sodium and exposure to cadmium, lead, and mercury, and the associated (absence of) adverse health aspects. The alternative scenario almost doubled the mean iodine intake in the Netherlands (to 300 μg/day) and Portugal (to 208 μg/day) and increased the average exposure to arsenic levels in the Netherlands (to 1.02 μg/kg bw/day) and Portugal (to 1.67 μg/kg bw/day). Conclusion: The intake of iodine and exposure to arsenic in the Netherland and Portugal were certainly higher due to the modeled increase of seaweed foods. If seaweed consumption increases close to the 10% substitution, the public health consequences thereof may trigger further research.

Human health risk-benefit assessment of fish and other seafood: a scoping review

Fish and other seafood are important sources of nutrients, but they are also sources of chemical contaminants that may cause adverse health effects. This article aimed to identify existing risk-benefit assessments (RBA) of fish, shellfish, and other seafood, compare methodologies, discuss differences and commonalities in findings, and identify limitations and ways forward for future studies. We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature of studies in all languages published from 2000 through April 2019. We identified 106 RBA of fish and other seafood across Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, and at the global level. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of fish and other seafood considered, beneficial and adverse compounds assessed, and overall methodology. Collected data showed that a diet consisting of a variety of lean and fatty fish and other seafood is recommended for the overall population and that women of childbearing age and children should limit the consumption of fish and other seafood types that have a high likelihood of contamination. Our review emphasizes the need for evidence-based, up-to-date, and harmonized approaches in RBA in general.

Statement on the derivation of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients

This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources.

Risk-benefit in food safety and nutrition - Outcome of the 2019 Parma Summer School

Risk-benefit assessment is the comparison of the risk of a situation to its related benefits, i.e. a comparison of scenarios estimating the overall health impact. The risk-benefit analysis paradigm mirrors the classical risk analysis one: risk-benefit assessment goes hand-in-hand with risk-benefit management and risk-benefit communication. The various health effects associated with food consumption, together with the increasing demand for advice on healthy and safe diets, have led to the development of different research disciplines in food safety and nutrition. In this sense, there is a clear need for a holistic approach, including and comparing all of the relevant health risks and benefits. The risk-benefit assessment of foods is a valuable approach to estimate the overall impact of food on health. It aims to assess together the negative and positive health effects associated with food intake by integrating chemical and microbiological risk assessment with risk and benefit assessment in food safety and nutrition. The 2019 Parma Summer School on risk-benefit in food safety and nutrition had the objective was to provide an opportunity to learn from experts in the field of risk-benefit approach in food safety and nutrition, including theory, case studies, and communication of risk-benefit assessments plus identify challenges for the future. It was evident that whereas tools and approaches have been developed, more and more case studies have been performed which can form an inherent validation of the risk-benefit approach. Executed risk-benefit assessment case studies apply the steps and characteristics developed: a problem formulation (with at least 2 scenarios), a tiered approach until a decision can be made, one common currency to describe both beneficial and adverse effects (DALYs in most instances). It was concluded that risk-benefit assessment in food safety and nutrition is gaining more and more momentum, while also many challenges remain for the future. Risk-benefit is on the verge of really enrolling into the risk assessment and risk analysis paradigm. The interaction between risk-benefit assessors and risk-benefit managers is pivotal in this, as is the interaction with risk-benefit communicators.

A common approach for ranking of microbiological and chemical hazards in foods based on risk assessment - useful but is it possible?

This article compares and contrasts microbial and chemical risk assessment methodologies in order to evaluate the potential for a common framework for ranking of risk of chemical and microbiological hazards, and developments needed for such a framework. An overview of microbial (MRA) and chemical (CRA) risk assessment is presented and important differences are highlighted. Two microbiological and two chemical hazard-food combinations were ranked based on both a margin of exposure and a risk assessment approach. The comparisons illustrated that it is possible to rank chemical and microbiological hazard-food combinations with traditional approaches from each domain and indicated that the rank order but not the absolute measures is similar using either approach. Including severity in the assessment using DALY reduced differences between hazards and affected the outcome more than which approach was used. Ranking frameworks should include assessment of uncertainty as an integral part of the ranking, and be based on assessment of risk, not safety, and expressed in a common health metric such as disease burden. Necessary simplifications to address data gaps can involve the use of default scenarios. Challenges include comparisons of case-based vs. non-case-based health-endpoints, e.g. biomarker concentration, and integration of the severity of health effects into ranking.

Addressing the risk of inadequate and excessive micronutrient intakes: traditional versus new approaches to setting adequate and safe micronutrient levels in foods

Fortification of foods consumed by the general population or specific food products or supplements designed to be consumed by vulnerable target groups is amongst the strategies in developing countries to address micronutrient deficiencies. Any strategy aimed at dietary change needs careful consideration, ensuring the needs of at-risk subgroups are met whilst ensuring safety within the general population. This paper reviews the key principles of two main assessment approaches that may assist developing countries in deciding on effective and safe micronutrient levels in foods or special products designed to address micronutrient deficiencies, that is, the cut-point method and the stepwise approach to risk-benefit assessment. In the first approach, the goal is to shift population intake distributions such that intake prevalences below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and above the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) are both minimized. However, for some micronutrients like vitamin A and zinc, a narrow margin between the EAR and UL exists. Increasing their intakes through mass fortification may pose a dilemma; not permitting the UL to be exceeded provides assurance about the safety within the population but can potentially leave a proportion of the target population with unmet needs, or vice versa. Risk-benefit approaches assist in decision making at different micronutrient intake scenarios by balancing the magnitude of potential health benefits of reducing inadequate intakes against health risks of excessive intakes. Risk-benefit approaches consider different aspects of health risk including severity and number of people affected. This approach reduces the uncertainty for policy makers as compared to classic cut-point methods.

Perspectives to performance of environment and health assessments and models--from outputs to outcomes?

The calls for knowledge-based policy and policy-relevant research invoke a need to evaluate and manage environment and health assessments and models according to their societal outcomes. This review explores how well the existing approaches to assessment and model performance serve this need. The perspectives to assessment and model performance in the scientific literature can be called: (1) quality assurance/control, (2) uncertainty analysis, (3) technical assessment of models, (4) effectiveness and (5) other perspectives, according to what is primarily seen to constitute the goodness of assessments and models. The categorization is not strict and methods, tools and frameworks in different perspectives may overlap. However, altogether it seems that most approaches to assessment and model performance are relatively narrow in their scope. The focus in most approaches is on the outputs and making of assessments and models. Practical application of the outputs and the consequential outcomes are often left unaddressed. It appears that more comprehensive approaches that combine the essential characteristics of different perspectives are needed. This necessitates a better account of the mechanisms of collective knowledge creation and the relations between knowledge and practical action. Some new approaches to assessment, modeling and their evaluation and management span the chain from knowledge creation to societal outcomes, but the complexity of evaluating societal outcomes remains a challenge.

Critical appraisal of the assessment of benefits and risks for foods, 'BRAFO Consensus Working Group'

BRAFO, Benefit-Risk Analysis for Foods, was a European Commission project funded within Framework Six as a Specific Support Action and coordinated by ILSI Europe. BRAFO developed a tiered methodology for assessing the benefits and risks of foods and food components, utilising a quantitative, common scale for health assessment in higher tiers. This manuscript reports on the implications of the experience gained during the development of the project for the further improvement of benefit-risk assessment methodology. It was concluded that the methodology proposed is applicable to a range of situations and that it does help in optimising resource utilisation through early identification of those benefit-risk questions where benefit clearly outweighs risk or vice versa. However, higher tier assessments are complex and demanding of time and resources, emphasising the need for prioritisation. Areas identified as requiring further development to improve the utility of benefit-risk assessment include health weights for different populations and endpoints where they do not currently exist, extrapolation of effects from studies in animals to humans, use of in vitro data in benefit-risk assessments, and biomarkers of early effect and how these would be used in a quantitative assessment.