Lead acceptable daily intake

Some critical differences in risk assessment procedure lead to confusing situations on a worldwide basis. These differences are due to some very controversial areas of safety issues including the calculation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI), the assignment of the ADI to maximum residue limit (MRL)/tolerance, the validation of the analytical methods needed to regulate drug residues, and the fitness of legislation to toxicology. 

The most recently reported UK results on surveillance for veterinary drug residues in meat and animal products show that traces of these compounds can, and sometimes do, arise in food. As all of these compounds are biologically potent in order to be effective in use, it is necessary to ensure that any residual activity in a food product does not present a risk to the consumer. The use of veterinary medicines inevitably leads to the presence of trace residues in food and the purpose of toxicological safety evaluation is to determine at what concentration the residues of a particular compound becomes a cause for concern with regard to human health. Thus, dose-response relationships have to be established and used to determine the concentration of a dmg at which the risks to human health become acceptable and are outweighed by the benefits from the use of the drug. This is in essence the process involved in the setting of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) and... 

The toxicological evaluations related to human safety of chemical substances are a very complex process involving the determination of the intrinsic toxicity and hazard of the test chemicals. Subsequently, this evaluation leads to determining and establishing a no observed effect level (NOEL) the highest dose level tested experimentally that did not produce any adverse effects. This dose level then is divided by a safety factor to establish an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the candidate chemical substance. The ADI value is normally based on current research and... 

The prototypical safety assessment for food-borne compounds is the acceptable daily intake (ADI) methodology, which was first documented in 1954, and has come to be employed throughout the world. This paradigm has also been codified in the consideration of food (e.g., aspartame) and color additives (e.g.. Red Dye No. 2), and pesticides (e.g., atrazine). It is also routinely used in the consideration of incidental food-borne chemical contaminants (e.g., lead), particularly as a tool for screening out trivial incidents of exposure. This procedure specifies that an acceptable dose of a chemical may be calculated with the following equation ... 

Field residues, if below the toxicological limit (acceptable daily intake), are used to set the legal limit. The residues of pesticides in the field experiment are affected by the environmental conditions such as temperature, wind, rain, solar irradiance etc. For this reason, residues limits (MRLs) can vary between countries because of the different climatic conditions, leading to EU trade difficulties. 

The FDA conducted studies of lipstick in 2009 and 2012 and found lead levels of up to 7.19 ppm in this cosmetic (Sevems 2013). For average and high use of lipstick, Liu et al. (2013) estimated an acceptable daily intake of lead to be less than 20 %. The Environmental Working Group maintains Skin Deep, a website with safety information on cosmetics and personal care products (EWG s Skin Deep 2013). 

Often, the output of the hazard (effects) assessment (e.g., the NOAEL) leads directly to the establishment of a regulatory standard, for example the derivation of an acceptable or tolerable daily intake (ADI/TDI) (Section 5.12) for a chemical in relation to a specific use category such as, e.g., pesticide, biocide, food additive, food contact material, etc. 

The situation is different for paraquat, which has an ADI of 0.005 mg/kg/day. Taking the 60-kg person as an example, the acceptable intake is 0.06 mg/day. On the exposure side, let us assume a residue of 0.2 mg/kg in bread and a daily consumption of 0.5 kg. This leads to an exposure of 0.1 mg/kg, which is about twice the acceptable intake. The conclusion is that, in this example, the risk associated with the residues of paraquat is not acceptable. 

---