Crevel R W, Kerkhoff M A, Koning M M
Toxicology Unit, Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever Research, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford, UK.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2000 Apr;38(4):385-93. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(99)00158-1.
Several commercially important refined vegetable oils are derived from plants which are recognized as potent food allergens (e.g. peanut, soy). Full refining of oils results in the almost complete removal from oils of protein, which is responsible for allergic reactions. However, it is uncertain whether the minute amounts remaining could provoke allergic reactions in highly susceptible individuals. This has led to a vigorous debate about the safety of refined oils and specifically whether to label each oil individually because of the potential risk of allergenicity. Peanut oil has been the most thoroughly studied. It has been shown, in well-designed studies, that refined peanut oil can be safely consumed by the vast majority of peanut-allergic individuals, whereas unrefined oil can provoke reactions in some of the same individuals. However, some other studies report cases of allergic individuals reacting to oils, which are presumed to be refined. While it is likely that the discrepancy between these observations is due to differences in the processing of the oils, and possibly the protein content, this has not been formally demonstrated. Few data exist on the potential allergenicity of other edible vegetable oils; what data there are suggest that the major oils (soy, maize, sunflower, palm) do not provoke allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Determining the content and immunoreactivity of the residual protein of refined oils is crucial to assessing the allergenic risk they present. Current methodology is inadequate and has not been validated for use with oils and aqueous extracts from oils. Little is known about the importance of different processing steps on allergenicity, although this information is crucial to risk assessment, particularly when considering process modifications. Available data suggest that the protein content of crude oils is of the order of 100-300 microg and that refining results in levels up to about 100-fold lower. The review concludes that peanut oil, and by extrapolation other edible vegetable oils, presents no risk of provoking allergic reactions in the overwhelming majority of susceptible people. However, there is a need to standardize and validate methodology for measuring the protein content and immunoreactivity of such so that they can be used to maintain process specifications. Thresholds of reactivity to allergens in man also need to be established in order to assess fully the risk from very small amounts.
几种具有重要商业价值的精炼植物油源自被认为是强效食物过敏原的植物（如花生、大豆）。油脂的完全精炼几乎能将引起过敏反应的蛋白质从油中完全去除。然而，尚不确定残留的微量蛋白质是否会在高度敏感个体中引发过敏反应。这引发了一场关于精炼油安全性的激烈辩论，特别是是否因存在潜在的致敏风险而对每种油单独进行标注。花生油是研究最为深入的。在精心设计的研究中表明，绝大多数对花生过敏的个体可以安全食用精炼花生油，而未精炼的油则会在一些相同个体中引发反应。然而，其他一些研究报告了过敏个体对据推测是精炼油产生反应的案例。虽然这些观察结果之间的差异可能是由于油的加工方式不同以及蛋白质含量不同，但尚未得到正式证实。关于其他食用植物油的潜在致敏性的数据很少；现有数据表明，主要的植物油（大豆、玉米、向日葵、棕榈）不会在敏感个体中引发过敏反应。确定精炼油中残留蛋白质的含量和免疫反应性对于评估它们所呈现的致敏风险至关重要。目前的方法并不充分，且尚未经过验证可用于油及油的水提取物。尽管这些信息对于风险评估至关重要，尤其是在考虑工艺变更时，但对于不同加工步骤对致敏性的重要性知之甚少。现有数据表明，原油中的蛋白质含量约为100 - 300微克，精炼后含量可降低至约低100倍。该综述得出结论，花生油以及由此推断的其他食用植物油，在绝大多数敏感人群中不存在引发过敏反应的风险。然而，需要对测量此类油的蛋白质含量和免疫反应性的方法进行标准化和验证，以便用于维持工艺规范。还需要确定人体对过敏原的反应阈值，以便全面评估极少量过敏原带来的风险。
