Essential nutrient element profiles in rice types: a risk–benefit assessment including inorganic arsenic

Abstract Rice is consumed by nearly half of the global population and a significant source of energy and nutrients. However, rice consumption can also be a significant pathway of inorganic arsenic (iAs) exposure, thus requiring a risk–benefit assessment. This study assessed nutrient element (NE) densities in fifty-five rice types (white, brown and wild rice) marketed in the UK. Densities of essential NE were used to rank rice types in meeting daily NE targets under different consumption scenarios through a newly developed optimisation approach. Using iAs data from these rice types, we assessed the margin of exposure (MOE) for low (the UK) and high (Bangladesh) rice intake scenarios. Our results showed that brown and wild rice are significantly higher in many NE and significantly contribute to dietary reference value (DRV). Our modelling showed that switching to brown or wild rice could increase the intake of several essential nutrients by up to eight times that of white rice. Using rice consumption data for mid-to-high-consumption countries, we estimate that brown rice could provide 100 % adult DRV for Fe, Mg, Cr, P and Mo, and substantial contributions for Zn, Se and K. Our results show that the amount of rice primarily determines risk from iAs consumed rather than the type of rice. Therefore, switching from white to brown or wild rice could be beneficial, provided iAs concentration in rice is within the recommended limits.

Download Full-text

Approaches for Health Effect Characterization in Risk-Benefit Assessment of Foods: A Comparative Case Study

Frontiers in Nutrition ◽

10.3389/fnut.2021.607929 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Sofie Theresa Thomsen ◽

Maarten Nauta ◽

Lea Sletting Jakobsen ◽

Marianne Uhre Jakobsen ◽

Heddie Mejborn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dose Response ◽

Health Effect ◽

Brown Rice ◽

Health Impact ◽

Benefit Assessment ◽

Comparative Case Study ◽

Food Component ◽

Risk Benefit Assessment ◽

The Impact

One of the challenges in quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods is the choice of approach for health effect characterization to estimate the health impact of dietary changes. The purpose of health effect characterization is to describe an association between intake of a food or food component and a health effect in terms of a dose-response relationship. We assessed the impact of the choice of approach for health effect characterization in RBA in two case studies based on substitution of (i) white rice by brown rice and (ii) unprocessed red meat by vegetables. We explored this by comparing the dose-response relations linking a health effect with (i) a food component present in the food, (ii) a food based on non-specified substitution analyses, and (iii) a food based on specified substitution analyses. We found that the choice of approach for health effect characterization in RBA may largely impact the results of the health impact estimates. Conducting the calculations only for a food component may neglect potential effects of the food matrix and of the whole food on the diet-disease association. Furthermore, calculations based on associations for non-specified substitutions include underlying food substitutions without specifying these. Data on relevant specified substitutions, which could reduce this type of bias, are unfortunately rarely available. Assumptions and limitations of the health effect characterization approaches taken in RBA should be documented and discussed, and scenario analysis is encouraged when multiple options are available.

Download Full-text

Risk–Benefit Assessment of Consumption of Rice for Adult Men in China

Frontiers in Nutrition ◽

10.3389/fnut.2021.694370 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Haiqin Fang ◽

Quantao Zhang ◽

Shengjie Zhang ◽

Tongwei Zhang ◽

Feng Pan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Effects ◽

Age Groups ◽

Health Impact ◽

Benefit Assessment ◽

Baseline Scenario ◽

Adult Men ◽

Life Years ◽

Risk Benefit Assessment ◽

Rice Consumption ◽

The Mean

Objective: To evaluate the health impact of current and alternative patterns of rice consumption in Chinese adult men (40–79 years of age).Methods: We applied a risk–benefit assessment (RBA) model that took into account the health effects of selenium (Se), cadmium (Cd), and inorganic arsenic (i-As). The health effects included the prevention of prostate cancer associated with exposure to Se, and an increased risk of lung, bladder, and skin cancer for i-As and chronic kidney disease (CKD) for Cd. We defined the baseline scenario (BS) as the current individual mean daily consumption of rice in the population of interest and two alternative scenarios (AS): AS1 = 50 g/day and AS2 = 200 g/day. We estimated the health impact for different age groups in terms of change in Disability-Adjusted Life Years (ΔDALY).Results: The BS of rice consumption was 71.5–105.4 g/day in different age groups of adult men in China. We estimated that for AS1, the mean ΔDALY was −2.76 to 46.2/100,000 adult men of 40–79 years old. For AS2, the mean ΔDALY was 41.3 to 130.8/100,000 individuals in this population group.Conclusion: Our results showed that, based on associated exposure to selenium, cadmium, and i-As in rice, the current consumption of rice does not pose a risk to adult men in China. Also, a lower (50 g/day) or higher (200 g/day) rice consumption will not bring larger beneficial effects.

Download Full-text

Differences between the European Union and United States of America in Drug Regulatory Affairs Affect Global Patient Safety Standards and Public Health Awareness: The Case of Deferasirox and Other Iron Chelating Drugs

Medicines ◽

10.3390/medicines8070036 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. 36

Author(s):

George J. Kontoghiorghes

Keyword(s):

Patient Safety ◽

Generic Drugs ◽

Benefit Assessment ◽

Regulatory Control ◽

Pharmaceutical Companies ◽

The European Union ◽

Regulatory Policies ◽

Regulatory Affairs ◽

Risk Benefit Assessment ◽

The Eu

Regulatory policies on drugs have a major impact on patient safety and survival. Some pharmaceutical companies employ all possible methods to achieve maximum sales in relation to the monopoly of their patented drugs, leading sometimes to irregularities and illegal activities. Misinformation on the orphan drug deferasirox has reached the stage of criminal investigations and fines exceeding USD 100 million. Additional lawsuits of USD 3.5 billion for damages and civil fines were also filed by the FBI of the USA involving deferasirox and mycophenolic acid, which were later settled with an additional fine of USD 390 million. Furthermore, a USD 345 million fine was also settled for bribes and other illegal overseas operations including an EU country. However, no similar fines for illegal practises or regulatory control violations have been issued in the EU. Misconceptions and a lack of clear guidelines for the use of deferasirox in comparison to deferiprone and deferoxamine appear to reduce the effective treatment prospects and to increase the toxicity risks for thalassaemia and other iron loaded patients. Similar issues have been raised for the activities of other pharmaceutical companies promoting the use of new patented versus generic drugs. Treatments for different categories of patients using new patented drugs are mostly market driven with no clear safeguards or guidelines for risk/benefit assessment indications or for individualised effective and safe optimum therapies. There is a need for the establishment of an international organisation, which can monitor and assess the risk/benefit assessment and marketing of drugs in the EU and globally for the benefit of patients. The pivotal role of the regulatory drug authorities and the prescribing physicians for identifying individualised optimum therapies is essential for improving the survival and safety of millions of patients worldwide.

Download Full-text