Deriving individual threshold doses from clinical food challenge data for population risk assessment of food allergens

Challenge-verified thresholds for allergens mandatory for labeling: How little is too much for the most sensitive patient?

BACKGROUND

It is mandatory to label food products with the 14 main allergens in the EU. Reasonable allergen labeling requires knowledge of population-based thresholds derived from food challenges. The aim of this study was to evaluate the threshold-distribution in clinically verified food allergic patients for allergens mandatory for labeling.

METHODS

All positive open oral food challenges and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) performed at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark (2000-2022) were included. For each included challenge, the cumulative threshold (LOAEL) was obtained and NOAEL estimated. Data were modelled as an interval censored log-normal distribution.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 of all 2612 challenges (1.5%) in 1229 patients (717 male, 986 children) reacted to <5 mg protein. The majority of the most sensitive patients reacted with a Sampson severity score of 2-3. Using interval censored log-normal models only five groups (hens´ egg, fish, peanut, milk, tree-nuts) elicited reactions after ingestion of 0.5 mg protein and in low frequencies of the population. Hen's egg was the most potent allergen, with reactivity to <0.5 mg protein in 0.24% [0.13-0.44%] of egg allergic patients while the estimated fraction of allergic patients reacting to a eliciting dose on 0.5 mg protein for most other allergens were below 0.04%.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrates that the majority of food allergic patients as expected tolerating traces of allergenic foods without developing severe allergic symptoms and signs. Hen's egg appears to be the food most likely to elicit reactions in the most sensitive individuals at very low doses.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

Eliciting and stop dose during oral food challenges for peanut and common tree nuts in different age groups

BACKGROUND

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are used to confirm or reject a diagnosis of food allergy. However, younger children may encounter difficulties in consuming all offered doses during an OFC in the absence of symptoms, resulting in inconclusive outcomes. Our aim is to assess the eliciting dose for objective symptoms among various age groups and determine the necessity of consuming the final dose step during an uneventful OFC to avoid false negative outcomes.

METHODS

OFCs for common food allergens performed between 2012 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the association of age with stop dose for OFCs with inconclusive outcome. Secondary outcome measures were the association of age with eliciting dose and the potential number of false negative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1327 OFCs were performed in 707 patients. Of these, 514 (38.7%) were positive, 589 (44.4%) negative, and 224 (16.9%) inconclusive. In OFCs with inconclusive outcome, age appeared to be a significant predictor of the stop dose only for almond (p = .005). Objective symptoms occurred after the last dose step in 2%-13% of all OFCs with positive outcome. In our cohort, potential false negative outcomes may have been drawn in 27.6% of uneventful OFCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Two third of children under 6 years of age successfully consumed all the provided doses during OFCs with a negative outcome. The eliciting dose for objective symptoms was not associated with age, and in a substantial number of OFCs with positive outcome, symptoms occurred after eating the final dose. These findings suggest that in case of an uneventful OFC, the outcome should be drawn only after a cumulative dose of 4.4 g has been consumed to avoid the risk of a potential false negative outcome.

Sesame eliciting and safe doses in a large sesame allergic population

BACKGROUND

Sesame is a significant food allergen causing severe and even fatal reactions. Given its increasing prevalence in western diet, sesame is listed as an allergenic food requiring labeling in the United States and EU. However, data on the population reaction doses to sesame are limited.

METHODS

All sesame oral food challenges (OFCs), performed either for diagnosis or for threshold identification before the beginning of sesame oral immunotherapy (OIT) between November 2011 and July 2021 in Shamir medical center were analyzed for reaction threshold distribution. Safe-dose challenges with 90-120 min intervals were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty patients underwent 338 positive OFCs, and additional 158 safe-dose OFCs were performed. The discrete and cumulative protein amounts estimated to elicit an objective reaction in 1% (ED01) of the entire cohort (n = 250) were 0.8 mg (range 0.3-6.3) and 0.7 mg (range 0.1-7.1), respectively, and those for 5% of the population (ED05) were 3.4 mg (range 1.2-20.6) and 4.5 mg (range 1.2-28.8), respectively. Safe-dose OFCs showed similar values of ED01 (0.8, 0.4-7.5 mg) and ED05 (3.4, 1.2-22.9 mg). While doses of ≤1 mg sesame protein elicited oral pruritus in 11.6% of the patients, no objective reaction was documented to this amount in any of the challenges, including safe-dose OFCs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides data on sesame reaction threshold distribution in the largest population of allergic patients studied, with no right or left censored data, and with validation using a safe-dose OFC. It further supports the current methods for ED determination as appropriate for establishing safety precautions for the food industry.

Relationship between eliciting doses and the severity of allergic reactions to food

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergies with low thresholds are associated with frequent accidental allergic reactions. Severe reactions attributable to accidental ingestion often result in a poor quality of life. Nevertheless, no evidence of a relationship between a low threshold dose and the severity of symptoms exists. Therefore, we evaluated recent data regarding the threshold of food allergies based on the oral food challenge (OFC). We also proposed a stepwise OFC method to identify threshold and consumable doses.

RECENT FINDINGS

A higher specific IgE level and a history of food-induced anaphylaxis were related to low threshold doses and severe reactions during the OFC. In addition, a low threshold dose was not directly correlated with severe reactions. Performing a stepwise OFC may help safely clarify consumable doses and prevent the complete avoidance of allergy-causing foods.

SUMMARY

Severe food allergies with high specific IgE levels are associated with lower thresholds and more severe reactions. However, the threshold is not directly related to the severity of food-induced allergic symptoms. Identifying a well tolerated consumable dose using a stepwise OFC may help manage food allergies.

Will Oral Food Challenges Still Be Part of Allergy Care in 10 Years' Time?

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are currently the definitive diagnostic procedure in food allergy. Their design has evolved over the decades to maximize safety, optimize convenience, and address several specific clinical questions. However, they are a resource-intensive investigation that carry a risk for severe allergic reaction in which fatal outcomes, although rare, have been reported. In this review, we explore the many roles that OFC fulfil in the clinical and research settings. We also discuss progress that has been made in developing alternative diagnostic tools and how far these have reached in offering a viable replacement to OFC in clinical practice. Finally, we discuss the ongoing importance of research OFC to improve the future diagnostic capabilities of novel diagnostic tools.

Relationship between serum allergen-specific immunoglobulin E and threshold dose in an oral food challenge

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported threshold doses for food allergens. However, evidence regarding potential risk factors for low threshold doses is limited. Moreover, the relationship between threshold dose and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) levels to causative foods remains unclear. This study examined the relationship and the risk factors for a low threshold dose.

METHODS

We recruited children with food allergies and examined the risk factors for a positive oral food challenge (OFC) with a low threshold dose and anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

We evaluated 2501 children with food allergies (1667 [67%] boys; median age, 4.9 years) to eggs (n = 1096), milk (n = 671), wheat (n = 370), peanuts (n = 258), walnuts (n = 65), and cashews (n = 41). Of these patients, 234 (9%) reacted to ≤30 mg protein of causative foods and 620 (25%) reacted to ≤100 mg protein of causative foods. The sIgE level to causative foods was a significant independent factor for positive OFCs with a threshold dose of ≤30 mg for milk, wheat, and peanuts; ≤ 100 mg for eggs, milk, wheat, peanuts, and cashews; and anaphylaxis from eggs, milk, wheat, peanuts, and walnuts. High sIgE levels to causative foods were associated with a lower threshold dose of the OFC and anaphylaxis during the OFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 9% of patients reacted to ≤30 mg protein of causative foods. The potential risks of anaphylaxis should be considered during OFCs for patients with elevated sIgE levels.

Clinical cross-reactivity of wheat and barley in children with wheat allergy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported in vitro cross-reactivity between wheat and barley. However, evidence regarding the clinical cross-reactivity of wheat and barley is limited. This study examined the clinical cross-reactivity of barley and wheat among children with immediate-type wheat allergies.

METHODS

We examined the threshold dose of a wheat oral food challenge for wheat-allergic children. We examined the reactivity of barley, and the oral food challenges of barley tea and barley rice were implemented as needed. We measured the specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) levels in wheat, ω-5 gliadin, and barley.

RESULTS

We evaluated 53 children (39 [74%] boys) with a median age of 6.6 years. Among them, 39 (74%) patients had a history of anaphylaxis to wheat. The median wheat-, barley-, and ω-5 gliadin-sIgE levels were 57.3, 12.1, and 3.2 kU_A /L, respectively. Twelve patients reacted to barley tea (1.8 mg), 14 reacted to barley rice (220-440 mg), and 27 were tolerant to barley tea and barley rice. Barley-allergic patients had significantly higher wheat- and ω-5 gliadin- and barley-sIgE levels and significantly lower threshold doses of wheat than barley-tolerant patients. Omega-5 gliadin-sIgE was the most useful predictor of barley allergy among wheat-allergic patients; the ω-5 gliadin-sIgE 95% positive predictive value for barley allergy was 4.6 kU_A /L.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of wheat-allergic children reacted to barley. A lower threshold dose of wheat is related to cross-reactive barley allergies. Omega-5 gliadin-sIgE predicts cross-reactive barley allergy in children allergic to wheat. Clinical cross-reactivity to barley should be considered in the management of wheat-allergic children.

Predicting probability of tolerating discrete amounts of peanut protein in allergic children using epitope-specific IgE antibody profiling

BACKGROUND

IgE-epitope profiling can accurately diagnose clinical peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether sequential (linear) epitope-specific IgE (ses-IgE) profiling can provide probabilities of tolerating discrete doses of peanut protein in allergic subjects undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges utilizing PRACTALL dosing.

METHODS

Sixty four ses-IgE antibodies were quantified in blood samples using a bead-based epitope assay. A pair of ses-IgEs that predicts Cumulative Tolerated Dose (CTD) was determined using regression in 75 subjects from the discovery cohort. This epitope-based predictor was validated on 331 subjects from five independent cohorts (ages 4-25 years). Subjects were grouped based on their predicted values and probabilities of reactions at each CTD threshold were calculated.

RESULTS

In discovery, an algorithm using two ses-IgE antibodies was correlated with CTDs (rho = 0.61, p < .05); this correlation was 0.51 (p < .05) in validation. Using the ses-IgE-based predictor, subjects were assigned into "high," "moderate," or "low" dose-reactivity groups. On average, subjects in the "high" group were four times more likely to tolerate a specific dose, compared with the "low" group. For example, predicted probabilities of tolerating 4, 14, 44, and 144 or 444 mg in the "low" group were 92%, 77%, 53%, 29%, and 10% compared with 98%, 95%, 94%, 88%, and 73% in the "high" group.

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate predictions of food challenge thresholds are complex due to factors including limited responder sample sizes at each dose and variations in study-specific challenge protocols. Despite these limitations, an epitope-based predictor was able to accurately identify CTDs and may provide a useful surrogate for peanut challenges.

Updated full range of Eliciting Dose values for Cow's milk for use in food allergen risk assessment

Access to Eliciting Doses (ED) for allergens enables advanced food allergen risk assessment. Previously, the full ED range for 14 allergenic foods, including milk, and recommendations for their use were provided (Houben et al., 2020). Additional food challenge studies with cow's milk-allergic patients added 247 data points to the original dataset. Using the Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data on the 697 individual NOAELs and LOAELs for milk generated an updated full ED distribution. The ED01 and ED05, the doses at which 1% and 5% of the milk-allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction, were 0.3 and 3.2 mg milk protein for the discrete and 0.4 mg and 4.3 mg milk protein for the cumulative dose distribution, respectively. These values are slightly higher but remain within the 95% confidence interval of previously published EDs. We recommend using the updated EDs for future characterization of risks of exposure of milk-allergic individuals to milk protein. This paper contributes to the discussion on the Reference Dose for milk in the recent Ad hoc Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessment of Food Allergens. It will also benefit harmonization of food allergen risk assessment and risk management globally.

Selecting processing robust markers using high resolution mass spectrometry for the detection of milk in food products

BACKGROUND

Cow's milk allergy is one of the most reported food allergies in Europe. To help patients suffering from food allergies it is important to be able to detect milk in different foods. An analytical method that is gaining interest in the field of allergen detection is Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-tandem Mass Spectrometry, where the analyte is a target peptide. When these peptide biomarkers are selected the effect of food processing should be taken into account to allow a robust detection method.

OBJECTIVE

This works aims at identifying such processing stable peptide markers for milk for the Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-tandem Mass Spectrometry based detection of food allergens in different food products.

METHODS

Milk-incurred food materials that underwent several processing techniques were produced. This was followed by establishing tryptic peptide profiles from each matrix using Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry .

RESULT

A careful comparison of peptide profiles/intensities and the use of specific exclusion criteria resulted in the selection of 8 peptide biomarkers suitable for application in Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-tandem Mass Spectrometry based milk detection methods. One of these markers is a α-lactalbumin specific peptide, which has been determined to be stable in different incurred materials for the first time.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic and experimentally based approach for the selection of suitable milk peptide biomarkers robust towards multiple, often applied food processing techniques for milk. Ensuring the exact knowledge of the food processing circumstances by starting from well-defined raw material and using fully controlled settings to produce incurred test material allowed the construction of a peptide database with robust markers. These robust markers can be used for the development of a robust detection method for milk in different food matrices.

Food Allergy a Constant Concern to the Medical World and Healthcare Providers: Practical Aspects

Food allergy (FA) is a condition with a growing incidence and is a constant concern for the medical world and healthcare providers. With potential symptoms including anaphylaxis, in the event of an allergic reaction the patient’s life may well be endangered. The diagnosis of FA is a continuous challenge because mild cases tend to be ignored or diagnosed late and young children with allergies are cared for by parents, who are not always able to accurately interpret symptoms. It is very important to be able to differentiate FAs from food intolerance and toxic reactions to food. An accurate diagnosis is required to provide personalized management of an FA. More sophisticated and accurate diagnostic tests, including component diagnosis and epitope reactivity, allow the provision of a directed diagnosis, a more accurate therapeutic approach, and a useful prognostic evaluation. Tests used in current practice include the specific search for serum IgE, elimination diets, oral food challenges, single, blind, and double-blind (DBPCFC) tests, as well as skin tests. The risk of anaphylaxis can be assessed by molecular diagnostics/component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) and by conducting a basophilic activation test (BAT). These tests allow a planned, personalized treatment based on molecular and clinical profiles. CRD can determine the individual profile of allergic molecular reactivity and enable the formulation of a prognostic judgment. Our article highlights the importance of knowing the immune mechanisms, diagnostics, and immunotherapies in FAs. Starting from observing exposure to food allergens, to identifying allergic reactions, analysing the severity of clinical manifestations, noting the possibilities of diagnosis, and illustrating adequate management strategies.

Single-dose oral challenges to validate eliciting doses in children with cow's milk allergy

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the use of eliciting doses (EDs) to inform allergen risk management. The ED can be estimated from the distribution of threshold doses for allergic subjects undergoing food challenges within a specified population. Estimated ED₀₅ values for cow's milk (the dose expected to cause objective allergic symptoms in 5% of the milk-allergic population) range from 0.5 mg to 13.9 mg cow's milk protein. We undertook a single-dose challenge study to validate a predicted ED₀₅ for cow's milk of 0.5 mg protein.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 4 clinical centres. Predetermined criteria were used to identify patients reacting to 0.5 mg cow's milk protein (approximately 0.015 mL of fresh cow's milk). Children over 1 year underwent formal challenge to cow's milk to confirm clinical reactivity.

RESULTS

172 children (median age 6.0 (IQR 0.7-11) years, 57% male) were included in this analysis. Twelve (7.0%, 95% CI 3.7%-11.9%) children experienced objective symptoms that met the predetermined criteria. One participant had mild anaphylaxis that responded to a single dose of adrenaline, the remainder experienced only mild symptoms with no treatment required. We did not identify any baseline predictors of sensitization that were associated with objective reactivity to the single-dose challenge using 0.5 mg cow's milk protein.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support an estimated ED₀₅ for cow's milk of 0.5 mg protein. Values for ED₀₅ above 0.5 mg for cow's milk protein proposed for allergen risk management need to be reviewed.

Managing Food Allergy When the Patient Is Not Highly Allergic

Few patients with food allergy are "highly allergic," meaning they always have severe reactions and always react to very small amounts of allergen. Standard medical approaches for allergy management have focused on the safety and lifestyle modifications this group truly needs, but consequently families with food allergy are typically advised to strictly avoid any exposure to their implicated allergens. Most food-allergic subjects are actually not reactive to very low doses, and many never experience severe reactions. There are also notable conditions where a different care plan is already commonly offered: patients with pollen-related food allergy syndrome, with food-associated exercise-induced anaphylaxis, and with resolving or mild milk or egg allergy might be advised to ingest the allergens in specific circumstances with detailed instructions. Because oral immunotherapy and allergy prevention by early exposure have emphasized alternatives to strict avoidance, there is increasing interest in prospects to forego strict avoidance in those with food allergy. For patients with a high threshold of reactivity (low-dose tolerant, high-dose mildly reactive), there may be options such as allowing the ingestion of products with precautionary allergen labels, allowing dietary indiscretions with small amounts of the allergen, or even encouraging ingestion of subthreshold amounts with therapeutic intent. These practices have not been extensively studied and could be considered controversial. If these approaches are considered, shared decision making is needed in discussing them with patients and families. This review considers the potential approaches to those who are "not highly allergic": the risks, benefits, shared decision making, and research needs.

Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eliciting doses (EDs) (eg, ED01 or ED05 values, which are the amounts of allergen expected to cause objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the population with an allergy, respectively) are increasingly being used to inform allergen labeling and clinical management. These values are generated from food challenge, but the frequency of anaphylaxis in response to these low levels of allergen exposure and their reproducibility are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine (1) the rate of anaphylaxis in response to low-level peanut exposure and (2) the reproducibility of reaction thresholds (and anaphylaxis) at food challenge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that reported at least 50 individuals with peanut allergy reacting to peanut at double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) and were published between January 2010 and September 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by using National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included (covering a total of 3151 participants, 534 of whom subsequently underwent further peanut challenge). At individual participant data meta-analysis, 4.5% (95% CI, 1.9% to 10.1%) of individuals reacted to 5 mg or less of peanut protein with anaphylaxis (moderate heterogeneity [I2 = 57%]). Intraindividual thresholds varied by up to 3 logs, although this variation was limited to a half-log change in 71.2% (95% CI, 56.2% to 82.6%) of individuals. In all, 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 5.0%) of patients initially tolerated 5 mg of peanut protein but then reacted to this dose at subsequent challenge (low heterogeneity [I2 = 16%]); none developed anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Around 5% of individuals reacting to an ED01 or ED05 level of exposure to peanut might develop anaphylaxis in response to that dose. This equates to 1 and 6 anaphylaxis events per 2500 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader population of individuals with peanut allergy.

Selected Instrumental Techniques Applied in Food and Feed: Quality, Safety and Adulteration Analysis

This review presents an overall glance at selected instrumental analytical techniques and methods used in food analysis, focusing on their primary food science research applications. The methods described represent approaches that have already been developed or are currently being implemented in our laboratories. Some techniques are widespread and well known and hence we will focus only in very specific examples, whilst the relatively less common techniques applied in food science are covered in a wider fashion. We made a particular emphasis on the works published on this topic in the last five years. When appropriate, we referred the reader to specialized reports highlighting each technique's principle and focused on said technologies' applications in the food analysis field. Each example forwarded will consider the advantages and limitations of the application. Certain study cases will typify that several of the techniques mentioned are used simultaneously to resolve an issue, support novel data, or gather further information from the food sample.

Bayesian hierarchical evaluation of dose-response for peanut allergy in clinical trial screening

Risk-based labeling based on the minimal eliciting doses (EDs) in sensitized populations is a potential replacement for precautionary allergen labeling of food allergens. We estimated the dose-response distribution for peanut allergen using data from double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) conducted in the US at multiple sites, testing a population believed to be similar to the general U.S. food allergic population. Our final (placebo-adjusted) dataset included 548 challenges of 481 subjects. Bayesian hierarchical analysis facilitated model fitting, and accounted for variability associated with various levels of data organization. The data are best described using a complex hierarchical structure that accounts for inter-individual variability and variability across study locations or substudies. Bayesian model averaging could simultaneously consider the fit of multiple models, but the Weibull model dominated so strongly that model averaging was not needed. The ED01 and ED05 (and 95% credible intervals) are 0.052 (0.021, 0.13) and 0.49 (0.22, 0.97) mg peanut protein, respectively. Accounting for challenges with severe reactions at the LOAEL, by using the dose prior to the LOAEL as the new LOAEL, the ED01 drops to 0.029 (0.014, 0.074) mg peanut protein. Our results could aid in establishing improved food labeling guidelines in the management of food allergies.

Full range of population Eliciting Dose values for 14 priority allergenic foods and recommendations for use in risk characterization

Previously, we published selected Eliciting Dose (ED) values (i.e. ED01 and ED05 values) for 14 allergenic foods, predicted to elicit objective allergic symptoms in 1% and 5%, respectively, of the allergic population (Remington et al., 2020). These ED01 and ED05 values were specifically presented and discussed in the context of establishing Reference Doses for allergen management and the calculation of Action Levels for Precautionary Allergen Labeling (PAL). In the current paper, we publish the full range of ED values for these allergenic foods and provide recommendations for their use, specifically in the context of characterizing risks of concentrations of (unintended) allergenic proteins in food products. The data provided in this publication give risk assessors access to full population ED distribution information for 14 priority allergenic foods, based on the largest threshold database worldwide. The ED distributions were established using broad international consensus regarding suitable datapoints and methods for establishing individual patient's NOAELs and LOAELs and state of the art statistical modelling. Access to these ED data enables risk assessors to use this information for state-of-the-art food allergen risk assessment. This paper contributes to a harmonization of food allergen risk assessment and risk management and PAL practices.

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved.

Updated population minimal eliciting dose distributions for use in risk assessment of 14 priority food allergens

Food allergy and allergen management are important global public health issues. In 2011, the first iteration of our allergen threshold database (ATDB) was established based on individual NOAELs and LOAELs from oral food challenge in roughly 1750 allergic individuals. Population minimal eliciting dose (EDp) distributions based on this dataset were published for 11 allergenic foods in 2014. Systematic data collection has continued (2011-2018) and the dataset now contains over 3400 data points. The current study provides new and updated EDp values for 14 allergenic foods and incorporates a newly developed Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data. ED01 and ED05 values, the doses at which 1%, and respectively 5%, of the respective allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction were determined. The 14 allergenic foods were cashew, celery, egg, fish, hazelnut, lupine, milk, mustard, peanut, sesame, shrimp (for crustacean shellfish), soy, walnut, and wheat. Updated ED01 estimates ranged between 0.03 mg for walnut protein and 26.2 mg for shrimp protein. ED05 estimates ranged between 0.4 mg for mustard protein and 280 mg for shrimp protein. The ED01 and ED05 values presented here are valuable in the risk assessment and subsequent risk management of allergenic foods.