EFSA Evaluates Ochratoxin A in Food and Derives a Tolerable Weekly Intake

[Guest guest]

Food Ingredients First (press release) - Duiven,Netherlands

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?

idNewsMaker=11249 & fSite=AO545 & next=8

Jun 12,2006-At the request of the European Commission, EFSA has

reviewed the previous opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food

(SCF, 1998) on OTA in the light of more recent toxicological studies

and exposure data.

12/06/06 The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) of the

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published today an opinion on

ochratoxin A (OTA), a mycotoxin naturally produced by certain fungi

such as the Penicillium and Aspergillus species. The Panel concluded

that, when consumed, OTA accumulates in the kidney and is

particularly toxic to this organ. Taking into account all data

currently available the Panel derived a Tolerable Weekly Intake

(TWI) of 120 ng per kg body weight for OTA. Currently, the weekly

exposure of the general population to OTA varies between 15 and 60

ng per kg bodyweight and is therefore well below this value. The

experts recommended that all efforts be made to continue to reduce

OTA levels in food and that a monitoring programme be established to

gather more specific exposure data for certain vulnerable groups.

At the request of the European Commission, EFSA has reviewed the

previous opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF, 1998) on

OTA in the light of more recent toxicological studies and exposure

data. Specific attention has also been given to vulnerable groups

such as infants and children and groups of consumers who are exposed

to higher levels of OTA than the average consumer due to their

dietary habits.

The Panel concluded that OTA is found to be a potent renal toxin in

animals such as rodents and pigs. The extent of renal injury is dose-

related and is associated with the duration of exposure. OTA

accumulates in the kidney which has been identified as the most

sensitive organ with respect to the toxicity of this mycotoxin. The

Panel further concluded that there is increasing evidence that both

OTA's renal toxicity and its genotoxic effects (damaging DNA, the

genetic material of cells) are most likely caused by the generation

of free radicals harmful to cells (so called cellular oxidative

stress). These effects may finally lead to kidney and liver tumours

as observed in animal studies with rodents.

Taking into account all data available the Panel established a TWI

of 120 ng/kg body weight for OTA. Current levels of exposure to OTA

vary between 15 and 60 ng per kg bodyweight per week which is well

below the established TWI. This evaluation takes into account both

average and high consumers of foods that are the main contributors

to OTA exposure. The Panel also recommended that more specific

exposure data be collected for certain vulnerable groups, including

infants and children and high consumers of certain regional food

specialities containing OTA.

[Guest guest]

I have spoken with a scientist who has done a lot of resarch on mycotoxins

and he has told me that according to work he has done, ochratoxin *is*

turning up in house air in concentrations known to be dangerous. (Especially

as the route by inhalation is very efficient, animal experiments show. More

so than ingestion.)

However, when you have toxin this powerful, testing for it efficiently is

very difficult because it both requires a sampling method that can process

huge volumes of air as well as extract the finest particles, which carry

quite a bit of the toxins, (also the ones most respirable.)

The SpinCon and Spector Omni 3000 samplers use tiny air-driven centrifuges

in which the air to be sampled is sprayed in such a way as to cause a

spinning air vortex within a tube filled with buffered sampling solution..

This seems to be the best method for capturing the tiny particles.. and its

most similar to the dynamics of a lung, but its mechanically pretty

elaborate and the equipment ends up being very expensive.

But its the only way. Simply testing HEPA filters does not yield meaningful

results very frequently in air quality situations because the porous air

filers allow the smallest particles to pass and they also can't sample the

high volumes of air necessary to capture the concentations of mycotoxins in

the buffer solution that are high enough to test. (also, of course, no

*fiter* trap can capture VOCs, but that should go without saying)

[Guest guest]

Actually, let me rephrase this: Its the only way that I know of right now

that actually seems to capture the kinds of results that people need to

meaningfully evaluate a situation. Otherwise, testers would often report 'no

toxin found' in situations in which toxins may be present in amounts that

could very well end up causing diseases or contributing greatly to them, or

accellerate the effects of aging dramatically.

(I suspect that this kind of effect may be what we most often see with

mycotoxicosis, as its been my experience that many of the effects mold has

on me resemble the kinds of things one might see happen over many many years

with aging, but instead they happen very quickly with exposure. For example,

sudden, dramatic changes in memory, such as forgetting important things

repeatedly, etc. like an 80 or 90 year old at age 50 - when such things did

not happen before, might be caused by mold toxins, or sudden outbursts of

bursitis or eye problems - when before they were fairly healthy, might also

be caused by mycotoxins preventing natural healing processes in the body

fron proceeding naturally. Also, a new 'neurogenic' theory of depression is

basically saying that depression can be caused by neurotoxins preventing the

formation of new brain cells, used to integrate new *emotional* information

into one's life. This theory's explanation could provide the 'missing link'

showing that mycotoxins cause depression.)

See

http://molinterv.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/8/441

On 6/14/06, LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote:

> But its the only way. Simply testing HEPA filters does not yield

> meaningful results very frequently in air quality situations because the

> porous air filers allow the smallest particles to pass and they also can't

> sample the high volumes of air necessary to capture the concentations of

> mycotoxins in the buffer solution that are high enough to test. (also, of

> course, no *fiter* trap can capture VOCs, but that should go without saying)

>

>

>

>

>