Khuda Sefat E, Sharma Girdhari M, Gaines Dennis, Do Andrew B, Pereira Marion, Chang Michael, Ferguson Martine, Williams Kristina M
a Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition , United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) , Laurel , MD , USA.
c Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition , University of Maryland , College Park , MD , USA.
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2016 Aug;33(8):1274-82. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2016.1207809. Epub 2016 Jul 29.
A comprehensive study was designed to determine the frequency and levels of soy allergen in packaged bakery and snack food products. A representative sample of products with no soy allergen disclosed on the label was analysed using two widely used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods. Samples were chosen that either had no soy identified on the product label or which had a soy precautionary statement. Among 558 bakery and snack products, soy protein was detected in 17% of the products using the Neogen (NE) kit and 11% of the products using the Elisa Systems (ES) kit. The disagreement rates between kits were 8.8% for bakery products and 3.3% for snack products. Overall soy protein was detected at higher frequency in bakery products than in snack foods. Among 284 bakery samples, soy protein was detected in 25% of the samples with no precautionary statement and 19% of the samples which had a precautionary statement. Among 274 snack samples, soy protein was detected in 11% of the samples with no precautionary statement and 9% of the samples which had a precautionary statement. The sample repeatability was at an acceptable level (< 9%) for each method and food commodity. The reproducibility between kits was 23% for bakery foods and 36% for snack foods. None of the bakery (21) and snack (6) products without precautionary labelling (measured level > 5 ppm) had a higher level of soy protein per serving compared with the eliciting dose10 (ED10) of 10.6 mg for soy allergic patients. But the level of soy protein per serving may be clinically relevant to a subpopulation of soy allergic patients if a more stringent eliciting dose is applied. These findings emphasise that suitable detection methodologies and references doses are crucial for labelling accuracy and the safety of soy allergic consumers.
一项全面的研究旨在确定包装烘焙食品和休闲食品中大豆过敏原的频率和含量水平。使用两种广泛应用的酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)方法,对标签上未标明含有大豆过敏原的代表性产品样本进行了分析。选择的样本要么在产品标签上未标明含有大豆成分,要么有大豆预防声明。在558种烘焙食品和休闲食品中,使用Neogen(NE)试剂盒检测出17%的产品含有大豆蛋白,使用Elisa Systems(ES)试剂盒检测出11%的产品含有大豆蛋白。两种试剂盒之间的不一致率,烘焙食品为8.8%,休闲食品为3.3%。总体而言,烘焙食品中检测到大豆蛋白的频率高于休闲食品。在284个烘焙食品样本中,未标明预防声明的样本中有25%检测出大豆蛋白,有预防声明的样本中有19%检测出大豆蛋白。在274个休闲食品样本中,未标明预防声明的样本中有11%检测出大豆蛋白,有预防声明的样本中有9%检测出大豆蛋白。每种方法和食品品类的样本重复性均处于可接受水平(<9%)。两种试剂盒之间的再现性,烘焙食品为23%,休闲食品为36%。在未标明预防标签(测量水平>5 ppm)的烘焙食品(21种)和休闲食品(6种)中,与大豆过敏患者的引发剂量10(ED10)即10.6毫克相比,每份产品的大豆蛋白含量均未更高。但是,如果采用更严格的引发剂量,每份产品的大豆蛋白含量对于一部分大豆过敏患者可能具有临床相关性。这些发现强调,合适的检测方法和参考剂量对于标签准确性和大豆过敏消费者的安全至关重要。