Food Standards Australia New Zealand

About: Food Standards Australia New Zealand is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Food safety & Population. The organization has 103 authors who have published 125 publications receiving 2575 citations.

Dietary intakes and food sources of omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Abstract: Both n−6 and n−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are recognized as essential nutrients in the human diet, yet reliable data on population intakes are limited. The aim of the present study was to ascertain the dietary intakes and food sources of individual n−6 and n−3 PUFA in the Australian population. An existing database with fatty acid composition data on 1690 foods was updated with newly validated data on 150 foods to estimate the fatty acid content of foods recorded as eaten by 10,851 adults in the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey. Average daily intakes of linoleic (LA), arachidonic (AA), α-linolenic (LNA), eicosapentaenoic (EPA), docosapentaenoic (DPA), and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids were 10.8, 0.052, 1.17, 0.056, 0.026, and 0.106 g, respectively, with longchain (LC) n−3 PUFA (addition of FPA, DPA, and DHA) totaling 0.189 g; median intakes were considerably lower (9.0 g LA, 0.024 g AA, 0.95 g LNA, 0.008 g EPA, 0.006 g DPA, 0.015 g DHA, and 0.029 g LC n−3 PUFA). Fats and oils, meat and poultry, cereal-based products and cereals, vegetables, and nuts and seeds were important sources of n−6 PUFA, while cereal-based products, fats and oils, meat and poultry, cereals, milk products, and vegetable products were sources of LNA. As expected, seafood was the main source of LC n−3 PUFA, contributing 71%, while meat and eggs contributed 20 and 6%, respectively. The results indicate that the majority of Australians are failing to meet intake recommendations for LC n−3 PUFA (>0.2 g per day) and emphasize the need for strategies, to increase the availability and consumption of n−3-containing foods.

A consensus protocol for the determination of the threshold doses for allergenic foods: how much is too much?

Abstract: Background While the ingestion of small amounts of an offending food can elicit adverse reactions in individuals with IgE-mediated food allergies, little information is known regarding these threshold doses for specific allergenic foods. While low-dose challenge trials have been conducted on an appreciable number of allergic individuals, a variety of different clinical protocols were used making the estimation of the threshold dose very difficult. Objective A roundtable conference was convened to develop a consensus clinical protocol for low-dose challenge trials for the estimation of threshold doses for specific allergenic foods. Methods In May 2002, 20 clinical allergists and other interested parties were invited to participate in a roundtable conference to develop consensus of the key elements of a clinical protocol for low-dose challenge trials. Results A consensus protocol was developed. Patients with convincing histories of food allergies and supporting diagnostic evidence including past challenge trials or high CAP-RAST scores can be enrolled in low-dose challenge trials. Care must be taken with younger patients to assure that they have not outgrown their food allergy. An approach was developed for the medication status of patients entering such trials. Challenge materials must be standardized, for example, partially defatted peanut flour composed of equal amounts of the three major varieties of peanuts (Florunner, Virginia, Spanish). Challenge materials must be appropriately blinded with sensory evaluation used to confirm the adequacy of blinding. A double-blind, placebo-controlled design should be used for low-dose challenge trials. Low-dose challenge trials would begin at doses of 10 mug of the allergenic food and would continue with doses of 100 mug and 1 mg followed by specific higher doses up to 100 mg depending upon the expert judgement of the physician; even higher doses might be applied to assure that the patient is indeed reactive to the particular food. A 30-min time interval would be used between doses, and reactive doses would be expressed as both discrete and cumulative doses. The goal of each challenge would be to develop objective symptoms; trials should not be discontinued on the basis of subjective symptoms only. Statistically, a minimum of 29 patients would be enrolled in low-dose challenge trials for each allergenic food because 0 reactors out of 29 patients at a particular dose allow the conclusion that there is 95% certainty that 90% of allergic individuals will not react to that dose. Conclusion A consensus protocol was developed. Using this protocol, it will be possible to estimate threshold doses for allergenic foods, the lowest amount that elicits mild, objective symptoms in highly sensitive individuals.

Foodborne disease in the new millennium: out of the frying pan and into the fire?

Abstract: About four million cases of foodborne infectious disease occur annually in Australia; new foodborne pathogens, such as enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli, are emerging. Climate change, combined with changes in how we produce and distribute food and how we behave as consumers, have the potential to affect foodborne disease in the coming century. Foodborne disease outbreaks are now more far-reaching (and sometimes global) due to modern mass food production and widespread food distribution. There are strong seasonal patterns for Salmonella and Campylobacter infection in Australia. Global warming may increase the incidence of infections, such as salmonellosis, and diseases caused by toxins, such as ciguatera.

World Health Organization estimates of the global and regional disease burden of four foodborne chemical toxins, 2010: a data synthesis.

Abstract: Background Chemical exposures have been associated with a variety of health effects; however, little is known about the global disease burden from foodborne chemicals. Food can be a major pathway for the general population's exposure to chemicals, and for some chemicals, it accounts for almost 100% of exposure. Methods and Findings Groups of foodborne chemicals, both natural and anthropogenic, were evaluated for their ability to contribute to the burden of disease. The results of the analyses on four chemicals are presented here - cyanide in cassava, peanut allergen, aflatoxin, and dioxin. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to develop age- and sex-specific disease incidence and mortality estimates due to these chemicals. From these estimates, the numbers of cases, deaths and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were calculated. For these four chemicals combined, the total number of illnesses, deaths, and DALYs in 2010 is estimated to be 339,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 186,000-1,239,000); 20,000 (95% UI: 8,000-52,000); and 1,012,000 (95% UI: 562,000-2,822,000), respectively. Both cyanide in cassava and aflatoxin are associated with diseases with high case-fatality ratios. Virtually all human exposure to these four chemicals is through the food supply. Conclusion Chemicals in the food supply, as evidenced by the results for only four chemicals, can have a significant impact on the global burden of disease. The case-fatality rates for these four chemicals range from low (e.g., peanut allergen) to extremely high (aflatoxin and liver cancer). The effects associated with these four chemicals are neurologic (cyanide in cassava), cancer (aflatoxin), allergic response (peanut allergen), endocrine (dioxin), and reproductive (dioxin).