Cargando…

Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide

EFSA was requested to deliver a statement on a recent publication revisiting the evidence for genotoxicity of acrylamide (AA). The statement was prepared by a Working Group and was endorsed by the CONTAM Panel before its final approval. In interpreting the Terms of Reference, the statement considere...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benford, Diane, Bignami, Margherita, Chipman, James Kevin, Ramos Bordajandi, Luisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9069548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35540797
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7293
_version_ 1784700455035600896
author Benford, Diane
Bignami, Margherita
Chipman, James Kevin
Ramos Bordajandi, Luisa
author_facet Benford, Diane
Bignami, Margherita
Chipman, James Kevin
Ramos Bordajandi, Luisa
collection PubMed
description EFSA was requested to deliver a statement on a recent publication revisiting the evidence for genotoxicity of acrylamide (AA). The statement was prepared by a Working Group and was endorsed by the CONTAM Panel before its final approval. In interpreting the Terms of Reference, the statement considered the modes of action underlying the carcinogenicity of AA including genotoxic and non‐genotoxic effects. Relevant publications since the 2015 CONTAM Panel Opinion on AA in food were reviewed. Several new studies reported positive results on the clastogenic and mutagenic properties of AA and its active metabolite glycidamide (GA). DNA adducts of GA were induced by AA exposure in experimental animals and have also been observed in humans. In addition to the genotoxicity of AA, there is evidence for both secondary DNA oxidation via generation of reactive oxygen species and for non‐genotoxic effects which may contribute to carcinogenesis by AA. These studies extend the information assessed by the CONTAM Panel in its 2015 Opinion, and support its conclusions. That Opinion applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach, as recommended in the EFSA Guidance for substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, for risk characterisation of the neoplastic effects of AA. Based on the new data evaluated, the MOE approach is still considered appropriate, and an update of the 2015 Opinion is not required at the present time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9069548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90695482022-05-09 Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide Benford, Diane Bignami, Margherita Chipman, James Kevin Ramos Bordajandi, Luisa EFSA J Scientific Report EFSA was requested to deliver a statement on a recent publication revisiting the evidence for genotoxicity of acrylamide (AA). The statement was prepared by a Working Group and was endorsed by the CONTAM Panel before its final approval. In interpreting the Terms of Reference, the statement considered the modes of action underlying the carcinogenicity of AA including genotoxic and non‐genotoxic effects. Relevant publications since the 2015 CONTAM Panel Opinion on AA in food were reviewed. Several new studies reported positive results on the clastogenic and mutagenic properties of AA and its active metabolite glycidamide (GA). DNA adducts of GA were induced by AA exposure in experimental animals and have also been observed in humans. In addition to the genotoxicity of AA, there is evidence for both secondary DNA oxidation via generation of reactive oxygen species and for non‐genotoxic effects which may contribute to carcinogenesis by AA. These studies extend the information assessed by the CONTAM Panel in its 2015 Opinion, and support its conclusions. That Opinion applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach, as recommended in the EFSA Guidance for substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, for risk characterisation of the neoplastic effects of AA. Based on the new data evaluated, the MOE approach is still considered appropriate, and an update of the 2015 Opinion is not required at the present time. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9069548/ /pubmed/35540797 http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7293 Text en © 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Scientific Report
Benford, Diane
Bignami, Margherita
Chipman, James Kevin
Ramos Bordajandi, Luisa
Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title_full Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title_fullStr Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title_short Assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
title_sort assessment of the genotoxicity of acrylamide
topic Scientific Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9069548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35540797
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7293
work_keys_str_mv AT assessmentofthegenotoxicityofacrylamide
AT benforddiane assessmentofthegenotoxicityofacrylamide
AT bignamimargherita assessmentofthegenotoxicityofacrylamide
AT chipmanjameskevin assessmentofthegenotoxicityofacrylamide
AT ramosbordajandiluisa assessmentofthegenotoxicityofacrylamide