Affiliations of authors: F. Granath, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; M. Törnqvist, Department of Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm.
Correspondence to: Fredrik Granath, Ph.D., Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Hospital M9:01, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: Fredrik.Granath{at}mep.ki.se).
In this issue of the Journal, Besaratinia and Pfeifer (1) add to the toxicologic evidence that acrylamide has the ability to induce genetic damage in mammalian cells. Acrylamide or probably glycidamide, its genotoxic metabolite, has a relatively low mutagenic potency and is likely to have a relatively small impact on the overall cancer risk of an individual. However, because rather high concentrations of acrylamide are found in frequently consumed foods, the total acrylamide burden to a population is large. If one is willing to assume that a low-dose linear relationship between acrylamide exposure and carcinogenicity exists, then the contribution of acrylamide to the total cancer incidence in a population may be important. The expectedly low carcinogenicity will, however, create difficulties in applying epidemiologic studies, and the uncertainties associated with extrapolations from experimental findings to potential risks make it difficult to communicate to the general public.
Data from cancer tests on rodents have been used to obtain a quantitative cancer risk estimate associated with acrylamide exposure (2). If this cancer risk estimate is used as the expected outcome, then the results (i.e., no statistically significant detectable effects) from epidemiologic studies among acrylamide-exposed workers (3,4) and from dietary studies (5,6) are in good agreement with the expectation. The results obtained from these studies are thus quite predictable, especially considering the low statistical power and the limited range of exposure doses. It is important to note that an epidemiologic study (or any study relying on statistics) can never prove that an exposure is harmless; it can merely provide an upper bound of a potential detrimental effect associated with an exposure.
In the case of acrylamide exposure, we have a situation in which the results from epidemiologic studies can provide us with an upper bound of its potential carcinogenic effect, which is several orders of magnitude higher than what is considered acceptable by regulatory agencies, i.e., one extra case during a lifetime among 10 000100 000 individuals. Alternatively, we can rely on methods based on experimental findings (which, for acrylamide, must be considered as very strong) with its inherent uncertainties relating to the extrapolation from animals to humans and from high doses to low doses.
The discovery of dietary acrylamide has its origin in an incident in which Swedish workers were exposed to acrylamide at a tunnel construction site (7,8). In our experience from the assessment and communication of risks associated with this incident, we found the quantitative risk estimation based on animal tests to be useful and necessary in reducing anxiety among the workers exposed to "a probable human carcinogen" (9), despite the scientific uncertainties. The quantitative cancer risk estimation for these workers was not debated by the media, but the same risk assessment methods, when applied to the dietary intake of acrylamide, led to a considerable media and scientific debate. A comprehensive description of the scientific background and risk communication of the acrylamide "alarm" in Sweden was documented by Löfstedt (10).
In our view, the precautionary principle1 applies in a situation like this and, given the scientific knowledge about a potential hazard, all stakeholders can apply this principle. Among food industries, the principle has already been applied and, to our knowledge, the amount of acrylamide has been reduced substantially in several products. Among the general population, an individuals application of this principle is a matter of personal preference. It is important that communication of hazards is balanced. In the case of acrylamide, where direct epidemiologic observations seem unattainable but toxicologic evidence is quite strong, polarization between scientists (i.e., toxicologists versus epidemiologists) is in our view counterproductive and even detrimental for science. Openly admitting the pros and cons of different scientific methodologies and trying to embrace each others opinions is, in our view, preferable so that the public is not confused when health risks are communicated to and by the media.
In our opinion, clarification and improvement of the risk assessment of acrylamide will be obtained primarily from experimental studies. The study by Besaratinia and Pfeifer (1) shows clearly that the mutation frequency is elevated after exposure to acrylamide. Fig. 1 shows the observed doseresponse curve, with doses on a linear scale (excluding the two highest doses that induced severe cytotoxicity). The leveling off of the curve, indicated by the two highest doses displayed, is in agreement with MichaelisMenten saturation kinetics of the metabolic activation of acrylamide to glycidamide. Understanding this metabolic activation in humans, rats, and mice (and its implication for a doseresponse curve) is important for improving the interspecies extrapolation of risk assessment. A fundamental problem of extrapolating risks is the shape of the doseresponse curve at low doses, i.e., at concentrations relevant to human exposures. The estimated average concentration of acrylamide in the blood is approximately 6 nM (estimated from the average background level of hemoglobin adducts among nonsmokers)a concentration that is five times lower than the lowest concentration used by Besaratinia and Pfeifer (1). Studying effects at such low exposures is very difficult even in in vitro studies.
|
Even if no one today can answer the question of whether dietary acrylamide is hazardous to humans, it is not inconceivable to us that acrylamide can contribute approximately 1% of the lifetime cancer risk, considering that a large fraction of all cancers has been attributed to dietary factors (15). However, because the individuals estimated cancer risk due to dietary acrylamide is quite small, there seems to be no reason to change nutritional guidelines, because the high consumption of foods such as potato chips or french fries should be avoided for other and more prominent health-related reasons, such as cardiovascular disease. However, the situation for vulnerable groups, e.g., pregnant women and children, should always be carefully considered. Finally, the contrast between the high levels of "naturally" occurring acrylamide exposure and the safety limits set by regulatory agencies is challenging for our risk philosophy and how risks should be managed.
NOTES
1 There is no consensus definition of the precautionary principle, but one oft-mentioned statement from the Wingspread conference in Racine, WI, in 1998 sums it up: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
REFERENCES
1 Besaratinia A, Pfeifer G. Weak yet distinct mutagenicity of acrylamide in mammalian cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95;88996.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Online. Coversheet for acrylamide. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1994. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
3 Marsh GM, Lucas LJ, Youk AO, Schall LC. Mortality patterns among workers exposed to acrylamide: 1994 follow up. Occup Environ Med 1999;56:18190.[Abstract]
4 Granath F, Ehrenberg L, Paulsson B, Törnqvist M. Cancer risk from exposure to occupational acrylamide. Occup Environ Med 2001;58:6089.
5 Mucci LA, Dickman PW, Steineck G, Adami HO, Augustsson K. Dietary acrylamide and cancer of the large bowel, kidney, and bladder: absence of an association in a population-based study in Sweden. Br J Cancer 2003;88:849.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
6 Hagmar L, Törnqvist M. Inconclusive results from an epidemiological study on dietary acrylamide and cancer. Br J Cancer. In press 2003.
7 Reynolds T. Acrylamide and cancer: tunnel leak in Sweden prompted studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:8768.
8 Törnqvist M, Bergmark E, Ehrenberg L, Granath F. Risk assessment of acrylamide, Kemikalieinspektionen 1998, PM No. 7/98 (in Swedish with abstract in English). Solna (Sweden): National Chemicals Inspectorate.
9 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to human: some industrial chemicals. No. 60. Lyon (France): IARC; 1994. p. 389433.
10 Löfstedt R. Science communication and the Swedish acrylamide "alarm". J Health Commun. In press 2003.
11 Abramsson-Zetterberg L. The dose-response relationship at very low doses of acrylamide is linear in the flow cytometer-based mouse micronucleus assay. Mutat Res 2003;535:21522.[ISI][Medline]
12 Paulsson B, Kotova N, Grawé J, Henderson A, Granath F, Golding B, et al. Induction of micronuclei in mouse and rat by glycidamide, genotoxic metabolite of acrylamide. Mutat Res 2003;535:1524.[ISI][Medline]
13 Johnson KA, Gorzinski SJ, Bodner KM, Campbell RA, Wolf CH, Friedman MA, et al. Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study on acrylamide incorporated in the drinking water of Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1986;85:15468.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
14 Friedman MA, Dulak LH, Stedham MA. A lifetime oncogenicity study in rats with acrylamide. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1995;27:95105.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
15 American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures1997. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 1999. p. 27.
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |