Survey of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and non-ortho-polychlorinated biphenyls in US meat and poultry, 2012–13: toxic equivalency levels, patterns, temporal trends and implications

ABSTRACT

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts a statistically based survey of the domestic meat supply (beef, pork, chicken and turkey) to determine current levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and non-ortho-polychlorinated biphenyls (no-PCBs) every 5 years. Fat samples for each slaughter class were collected from US federally licensed slaughter facilities. The samples were processed and analysed for 17 PCDD/Fs and three no-PCBs. The sum of PCDD, PCDF and no-PCB toxic equivalencies (sum-TEQ) calculated using 2005 toxic-equivalency factors for all slaughter classes ranged from non-detect (n.d.) to 6.47 pg TEQ g^–1 lipid. The median sum-TEQs, when n.d. = 0.5 LOD, for beef, pork, chicken and turkey were 0.66, 0.12, 0.13 and 0.34 pg TEQ g^–1 lipid respectively. A comparison of the current survey with the previous three surveys shows a declining trend, with decreasing differences between medians; differences between the median sum-TEQs from 2007–08 and 2012–13 were –10%, –29%, –33% and –25% for beef, pork, chicken and turkey respectively. Several beef samples underwent further characterisation and congener patterns from these beef samples suggested pentachlorophenol treated wood as the likely exposure source. US consumer exposure to these compounds is relatively low and no slaughter class contributed more than 26% to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) chronic oral reference dose of 0.7 pg TEQ kg^–1 bw day^–1.

Graphical Abstract

KEYWORDS:

• Dioxins
• PCBs
• food survey
• meat
• poultry
• temporal trends
• exposure

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Andrew Thompson, Margaret Lorentzsen, Lyndsi Vander Wal, Dee Ellig, Theresa Fakler, Kelsey Heiberg, Malinda Scherf and Nate Grosz for their help with sample processing, extraction and analysis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

The project was funded by the USDA-FSIS-ARS [interagency agreements 12-065 and 13-014]. The use of trade, firm or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural Research Service, or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. The authors declare no competing financial interest