The safety assessment of Novel Foods and concepts to determine their safety in use

References

• Anon (2001): High intensity electric field pulses. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 12, 89–112.
   Google Scholar
• Australia New Zealand Food Authority (1998): Guidelines for the safety assessment of foods to be included in Standard A 18-Food produced using gene technology. Barton, Australia: Food Standards Australia New Zeal- and.
   Google Scholar
• Barbosa-Canovas GV, Pothakamury UR, Pafou EK & Swanson BG (1998): Nonthermal preservation of foods. New York: Marcel Dekker inc.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow SM, Greig JB, Bridges JW, Carere A, Carpy AJ, Galli CL, Kleiner J, Knudsen I, Koeter HB, Levy LS, Madsen C, Mayer S, Narbonne JF, Pfannkuch F, Prodanchuk MG, Smith MR & Steinberg P (2002): Hazard identification by methods of animal-based tox-
   Google Scholar
• icology. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 145–191.
   Google Scholar
• Busta F (2000): Quantification of destruction kinetics for microbial inactivation by alternative food processing technologies. Food Sci. 65(suppl.), 1S -108S.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (1997): Recom- mendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of information necessary to
   Google Scholar
• support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food ingredients. L253, 1 -36. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
   Google Scholar
• European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (2001): Decision of 23.05.2001 on authorising the placing on the market of pasteurised fruit-based preparations produced using high- pressure pasteurisation as a novel food ingredient under
   Google Scholar
• Regulation (EC) N8 258/97 of the European Parliament
   Google Scholar
• and of the Council. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Dybing E, Doe J, Groten J, Kleiner J, O’Brien J, Renwick AG, Schlatter J, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Walker R & Younes M (2002): Hazard characterisation of chemicals in food and diet. Dose response, mechanisms and extrapola-
   Google Scholar
• tion issues. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 237–282.
   Google Scholar
• ECETOC (2001): Genomics, Transcripts profiling, Proteo- mics and Metabolomics (GTPM) an introduction. Docu- ment 42. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals.
   Google Scholar
• Edler L, Poirier K, Dourson M, Kleiner J, Mileson B, Nordmann H, Renwick A, Slob W, Walton K & Wurtzen G (2002): Mathematical modelling and quantitative
   Google Scholar
• methods. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 283–326.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards DG, Porter PD & Dean Jill (1985a): The responses of rats to various combinations of energy and protein I:
   Google Scholar
• Diets made from purified ingredients. Lab. Anim. 19, 328–335.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards DG & Dean Jill (1985b): The responses of rats to various combinations of energy and protein II: Diets made from natural ingredients. Lab. Anim. 19, 336 -343. Eisenbrand G, Pool-Zobel B, Baker V, Balls M, Blaauboer
   Google Scholar
• BJ, Boobis A, Carere A, Kevekordes S, Lhuguenot JC, Pieters R & Kleiner J (2002): Methods of in vitro toxicology. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 193–236.
   Google Scholar
• FAO/WHO (1991): Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• FAO/WHO (1996): Biotechnology and food safety. 61. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO/WHO (1997): Risk management and food safety. 65. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO/WHO CODEX (2002): Report of the Third Session of the CODEX Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Proposed draft annex
   Google Scholar
• on the Assessment of Possible Allergenicity. 62–74.
   Google Scholar
• Rome: Codex Alimentarius FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAO/WHO UNICEF Protein Advisory Group (1970): PAG Statement N84 on Single Cell Protein. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
   Google Scholar
• GMOCARE QLK1-1999-00765. New methodologies for assessing the potential of unintended effects in genetically modified food crops. www.entransfood.com/RTDprojects/ GMOCARE/default.htm. Wageningen, The Netherlands: RIKILT Institute of Food Safety.
   Google Scholar
• Gould GW (1995): New methods of food preservation.
   Google Scholar
• London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
   Google Scholar
• Health Canada (1994): Guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. Ottawa: Food Directorate Health Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hendricks M & Knorr D (2002): Ultra high pressure processing of foods. New York: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• ILSI Europe (1999): Safety assessment of viable genetically modified micro-organisms used in food. International Washington, DC: Life Sciences Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas DA, Antignac E, Antoine JM, Classen HG, Huggett A, Knudsen I, Mahler J, Ockhuizen T, Smith M, Teuber M, Walker R & De Vogel P (1996): The safety assessment of novel foods. Guidelines prepared by ILSI Europe
   Google Scholar
• Novel Food Task Force. Food Chem. Toxicol. 34, 931–940.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas DA, Elmadfa I, Engel KH, Heller KJ, Kozianowski G, Konig A, Muller D, Narbonne JF, Wackernagel W & Kleiner J (2001): Safety considerations of DNA in food. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 45, 235–254.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan KP, Laroque P, Ballam GC, Soper KA, Dixit R, Mattson BA, Adams SP & Coleman JB (1996): The effects of diet, ad libitum overfeeding, and moderate dietary restriction on the rodent bioassay: the uncon- trolled variable in safety assessment. Toxicol. Pathol. 24,
   Google Scholar
• - 768.
   Google Scholar
• Knudsen I & Ovesen L (1995): Assessment of novel foods: a call for a new and broader GRAS concept. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 21, 365–369.
   Google Scholar
• Kroes R, Muller D, Lambe J, Lowik MR, van Klaveren J, Kleiner J, Massey R, Mayer S, Urieta I, Verger P & Visconti A (2002): Assessment of intake from the diet.
   Google Scholar
• Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 327–385.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens B & Knorr D (1997): Developments of nonthermal processes for food preservation. Food Technol. 46, 124–133.
   Google Scholar
• Munro IC, McGirr LG, Nestmann ER & Kille JW (1996): Alternative approaches to the safety assessment of macronutrient substitutes. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 23, S6 -14.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (1995): Nutrient requirements of laboratory animals. Washington: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (1993): Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles. Paris: Organisa- tion for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2001a): Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean: key food
   Google Scholar
• and feed nutrients and anti-nutrients. 2. Paris: Organisa- tion for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2001b): Consensus document on key nutrients and key toxicants in low erucic acid rapeseed (canola). 1. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2002a): Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of potatoes: key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients and toxicants. 4. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2002b): Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of sugar beet: key food and feed nutrients and anti-nutrients. 3. Paris: Organisa- tion for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2002c): Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of maize (Zea mays): key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients and secondary plant metabolites. 6. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Ozen BF & Floros JD (2001): Effects of emerging food processing techniques on the packaging materials. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 12, 60–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG (1993): Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contami- nants. Food Addit. Contam. 10, 275–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick AG (1995): The use of an additional safety or uncertainty factor for nature of toxicity in the estimation of acceptable daily intake and tolerable daily intake
   Google Scholar
• values. Regul Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22, 250–261.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration (29-5-1992): Foods derived from new plant varieties. Federal Register 57
   Google Scholar
• 22984. Washington: Office of the Federal Register. van den Brandt P, Voorrips L, Hertz-Picciotto I, Shuker D, Boeing H, Speijers G, Guittard C, Kleiner J, Knowles M,
   Google Scholar
• Wolk A & Goldbohm A (2002): The contribution of epidemiology. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 387–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO (1987): Principles for the safety assessment of food additives and contaminants in food. 70. Geneva: WHO.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association (2002): Helsinki Declaration
   Google Scholar
• concerning ethical principles for medical research invol- ving human subjects; first adopted Helsinki, June 1964 and last amended Washington 2002. www.wma.net/e/ policy/b3.htm. France: The World Medical Association.
   Google Scholar