- Welcome to Food Allergy Support.
Posted by CMdeux
- October 19, 2011, 10:43:28 AMWell, it doesn't really solve the underlying pragmatic problems which have dogged 'allergen detection' efforts in foods all along.
MOST foodstuffs are not homogenous mixutres, and contamination certainly isn't homogeneous.
Ergo, sampling is, INHERENTLY, flawed from the get-go.
All of the work that Dr. Taylor and colleagues do does not change that basic fact. I have always objected to the notion that FARRP can 'clear' a food of contamination in the wake of a reaction to it.
"Well, not really," is my answer to that. They can identify contamination if it is present in the sample evaluated at a level in excess of the limit of detection. Nothing more. That says NOTHING about contamination in a consumed sample, or in samples NOT tested.
To extend the conclusions of an analysis to samples not tested assumes homogeneity among the population, or, at the very best, accounts for a lack of homogeneity via sampling methodology.
In other words, I'm not at all sure what the underlying PURPOSE of this research can possibly be for this particular group of researchers, because it certainly isn't what they seem to THINK it is.
Not only are they ignoring that most vulnerable 1% (or 0.1%, or 0.01% or whatever it is)... but they are also ignoring the physical REALITY of what food is from a materials/chemical standpoint. It is NOT homogeneous (aside from a few exceptions such as oil or aqueous solutions without suspended particles), and even if it were, CONTAMINATION certainly isn't.
In short, this is NEVER going to absolve manufacturers of a responsibility to divulge processing to consumers with food allergies. Never. Because there is no realistic means of ever making sampling on a production line meaningful in the real world-- outliers matter here, and it isn't "total" contamination spread over the population that is important-- it's concentration in EACH and EVERY individual mouthful and serving within the entire population coming off of that production line.
Come up with a way of evaluating THAT, and this might mean something. Well, to least sensitive 99.9% or whoever is above that cutoff point, anyway.
MOST foodstuffs are not homogenous mixutres, and contamination certainly isn't homogeneous.
Ergo, sampling is, INHERENTLY, flawed from the get-go.
All of the work that Dr. Taylor and colleagues do does not change that basic fact. I have always objected to the notion that FARRP can 'clear' a food of contamination in the wake of a reaction to it.
"Well, not really," is my answer to that. They can identify contamination if it is present in the sample evaluated at a level in excess of the limit of detection. Nothing more. That says NOTHING about contamination in a consumed sample, or in samples NOT tested.
To extend the conclusions of an analysis to samples not tested assumes homogeneity among the population, or, at the very best, accounts for a lack of homogeneity via sampling methodology.
In other words, I'm not at all sure what the underlying PURPOSE of this research can possibly be for this particular group of researchers, because it certainly isn't what they seem to THINK it is.
Not only are they ignoring that most vulnerable 1% (or 0.1%, or 0.01% or whatever it is)... but they are also ignoring the physical REALITY of what food is from a materials/chemical standpoint. It is NOT homogeneous (aside from a few exceptions such as oil or aqueous solutions without suspended particles), and even if it were, CONTAMINATION certainly isn't.
In short, this is NEVER going to absolve manufacturers of a responsibility to divulge processing to consumers with food allergies. Never. Because there is no realistic means of ever making sampling on a production line meaningful in the real world-- outliers matter here, and it isn't "total" contamination spread over the population that is important-- it's concentration in EACH and EVERY individual mouthful and serving within the entire population coming off of that production line.
Come up with a way of evaluating THAT, and this might mean something. Well, to least sensitive 99.9% or whoever is above that cutoff point, anyway.
Posted by maeve
- October 18, 2011, 03:23:00 PMQuote from: CMdeux on October 17, 2011, 05:18:04 PM
Adding, with a bit of malicious glee...
I guess this means that Dr. Taylor has learned about limits of detection, the concept of zero concentration, and "no protein remaining" in the ten years since he and I had it out over peanut oil being "safe" after hot processing, huh?
In all seriousness, I respect what they are TRYING to do here, but I have very grave concerns about them using an arbitrary cut-off that endangers some people in the name of making life more "convenient" for a majority ofallergic consumersfood manufacturers.
Fixed that for you. This isn't about making things easy for consumers; it's about making it easier for manufacturers, who could point to science as the reason to ditch advisory labelling.
Posted by AllergyMum
- October 18, 2011, 10:08:39 AMQuote from: CMdeux on October 17, 2011, 05:11:55 PM
Sorry, but the interests of "better living" for the most tolerant 10% of PA consumers does NOT, in my opinion, absolve the researchers and regulators of their responsibility to protect the most sensitive 1%, who are at greatest risk of DEATH.
I agree. I also feel that way about all the baked milk & baked egg pushing from the general population. Yes some people can tolerate baked, but NOT my kid who is highly reactive to the smallest amount. Just because a percentage of the allergy population can tolerate, makes it a very slippery slope to have such general reaserch and general statements.
And I don't want the "guidance of thresholds" they are suggesting. I want to know "Yes is may contain", and then it is up to me to call the company and determine if it is within our safty level. I fear other people making threshold levels due to my son's history of reactions.
Posted by CMdeux
- October 17, 2011, 05:18:04 PMAdding, with a bit of malicious glee...
I guess this means that Dr. Taylor has learned about limits of detection, the concept of zero concentration, and "no protein remaining" in the ten years since he and I had it out over peanut oil being "safe" after hot processing, huh?
In all seriousness, I respect what they are TRYING to do here, but I have very grave concerns about them using an arbitrary cut-off that endangers some people in the name of making life more "convenient" for a majority of allergic consumers.
I guess this means that Dr. Taylor has learned about limits of detection, the concept of zero concentration, and "no protein remaining" in the ten years since he and I had it out over peanut oil being "safe" after hot processing, huh?
In all seriousness, I respect what they are TRYING to do here, but I have very grave concerns about them using an arbitrary cut-off that endangers some people in the name of making life more "convenient" for a majority of allergic consumers.
Posted by CMdeux
- October 17, 2011, 05:11:55 PMPretty sure I know what would happen to my DD if she drank something that contained even 10 mg of peanut protein.
Besides, once you start talking about threshold dosing and that low end...
all the evidence that I have seen on the subject indicates that these are the people MOST vulnerable to severe anaphylaxis from a reaction-- any reaction.
Something tells me they may have a wee bit of trouble getting that "one shot" approved for all patients.
And if they can't DO it for all patients, then they can't extrapolate to the full population.
Sorry, but the interests of "better living" for the most tolerant 10% of PA consumers does NOT, in my opinion, absolve the researchers and regulators of their responsibility to protect the most sensitive 1%, who are at greatest risk of DEATH.
That's just plain heinous.
Besides, once you start talking about threshold dosing and that low end...
all the evidence that I have seen on the subject indicates that these are the people MOST vulnerable to severe anaphylaxis from a reaction-- any reaction.
Something tells me they may have a wee bit of trouble getting that "one shot" approved for all patients.
And if they can't DO it for all patients, then they can't extrapolate to the full population.
Sorry, but the interests of "better living" for the most tolerant 10% of PA consumers does NOT, in my opinion, absolve the researchers and regulators of their responsibility to protect the most sensitive 1%, who are at greatest risk of DEATH.
That's just plain heinous.
Posted by LinksEtc
- October 17, 2011, 03:45:00 PMhttp://allergicliving.com/index.php/2011/10/16/qa-is-there-a-safe-level-for-peanut-in-foods/?page=1
QuoteAllergic Living magazine is closely following scientific investigations of whether it's possible to identify a "safe level" of peanut in manufactured foods. Editor Gwen Smith will have a full article on this controversial topic in the Winter 11-12 issue of the magazine.