Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 378, Issue 5, pp 1152–1160

Natural toxins: risks, regulations and the analytical situation in Europe

Review

Abstract

Natural toxins in food and feed are considered important food safety issues of growing concern, in particular mycotoxins, phycotoxins and plant toxins. Most scientific developments have occurred in the past few decades in the area of mycotoxins. Formal health risk assessments have been carried out by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Limits and regulations for mycotoxins in food and feed have been established in many countries, including practically all European countries. An array of (formally validated) analytical methods and (certified) reference materials have become available. Several European research projects, funded by the European Commission and supported by the European Standardization Committee, have significantly contributed to this development. Quantitative methods of analysis for mycotoxins often make use of immunoaffinity cleanup with liquid chromatographic or gas chromatographic separation techniques in combination with various types of detectors, including mass spectroscopy. For screening purposes (bio)sensor-based techniques are among the promising newcomers. For the phycotoxins the situation is less advanced. Formal risk assessments by authoritative international bodies have not been carried out. Methods of analysis, formally validated according to internationally harmonized protocols, are scarce and animal testing still plays a key role in official methodology. The development of the analytical methodology is partly hampered by the limited availability of certain reliable calibrants and reference materials, although this situation is gradually improving. New regulations in the European Union have increased the pressure to develop and validate chemical methods of analysis. Joint efforts in the European context are now directed towards significantly improving this situation, and techniques such as liquid chromatography–mass spectroscopy offer promise in this respect. Both the working group on biotoxins of the European Standardization Committee and the network of National Reference Laboratories for Marine Biotoxins have taken up responsibilities here. The plant toxins are a category of natural toxins, where the situation is the least developed with respect to regulations, validated methods of analysis and reference materials. Yet, their occurrence in a wide range of consumable plant species demands the attention of the analytical community.

Keywords

Natural toxin Mycotoxin Phycotoxin Plant toxin Analysis Reference material 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2002) WHO global strategy for food safety: safer food for better health. Food Safety Programme-2002. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (2002) Evaluation of certain mycotoxins in food. Fifty-sixth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, WHO Technical Report Series 906. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Agriculture Organization (2001) Safety evaluation of certain mycotoxins in food. Fifty-sixth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 74. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commission (2003) Mycotoxins. In: Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on undesirable substances in feed (adopted on 20 February 2003). European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, pp 6–24Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission (1997) Reports on tasks for scientific cooperation. Report of experts participating in Task 3.2.1. Risk assessment of aflatoxins. Report EUR 17526 EN, Directorate-General for Industry, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miraglia M, Brera C (2002) Assessment of dietary intake of ochratoxin A by the population of EU member states.http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/index_en.html. Cited Jan 2002
  7. 7.
    Majerus P, Kapp K (2002) Assessment of dietary intake of patulin by the population of EU member states.http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/index_en.html. Cited Mar 2002
  8. 8.
    Gareis M, Schothorst RC, Vidnes A, Bergsten C, Paulsen B, Brera C, Miraglia M (2003) SCOOP task 3.2.10. Collection of occurrence data of Fusarium toxins in food and assessment of dietary intake by the population of EU member states. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/scoop/task3210.pdf
  9. 9.
    Mechanisms of ochratoxin A-induced carcinogenicity as a basis for an improved risk assessment (2003).http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/toxikologie/EU-OTA/OchratoxinA.html
  10. 10.
    Van Egmond HP, Jonker, MA (2003) Mycotoxins and regulations. In: Final programme, abstracts of lectures and posters, the Second World mycotoxin forum, Noordwijk aan Zee, 17–18 February 2003, p 18Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Egmond HP, Jonker, MA (2004) Worldwide regulations for mycotoxins in food and feed: the situation in 2003. Draft FAO Food and Nutrition Paper. National Institute for Public Health & the Environment, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horwitz W (1995) Pure Appl Chem 67:331–343Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Comité Européen de Normalisation (1999) Food analysis—biotoxins—criteria of analytical methods of mycotoxins. CEN report CR 13505Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Commission (1998) Commission Directive 98/53/EC, 16/07/1998, OJ L 201:93–101Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission (2002) Commission Directive 2002/26/EC, 13/03/2002, OJ L 75:38–43Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trucksess MW, Whitaker TB, Van Egmond HP, Wilson DM, Solfrizzo M, Abramson D, Dorner J, Ware GM, Maragos C, Hald B, Sabino M, Eppley RM, Hagler WM (2003) J AOAC Int 86:129–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krol J, Siantar D (2003) Abstract in: Final programme, 117th AOAC international annual meeting & exposition, Atlanta, 14–18 September 2003, AOAC, p 110Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schothorst RC (2003) (personal communication)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Mycotoxin Awareness Network (2003) http://www.mycotoxins.org
  20. 20.
    Tüdos AJ, Lucas-van den Bos HR, Stigter ECA (2003) Submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Gilbert J, Anklam E (2002) Trend Anal Chem 21:468–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friesen MD (1989) Report on the statistical analysis of results obtained for the analysis of ochratoxin in wheat flour. Mycotoxin sample survey programme. International Agency for Research on Cancer Report EC/92/15–2, LyonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richard JL, Payne GA, Desjardins AE, Maragos C, Norred WP, Pestka JJ, Phillips TD, Van Egmond HP, Vardon PJ, Whitaker TB, Wood G (2003) Mycotoxins: risks in plant, animal, and human systems, CAST Task Force Report 139. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, pp 101–103Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Apeldoorn ME, Van Egmond HP, Speijers GJA (2004) Marine biotoxins: a review. Draft FAO Food and Nutrition Paper. National Institute for Public Health & the Environment, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Egmond HP, Speijers GJA, Van den Top HJ (1992) J Nat Toxins 1:67–85Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization (1998) Guidelines for drinking water quality, 2nd edn. Addendum to vol 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Commission (2002) Commission Decision 2002/226/EC, 15/03/2002, OJ L 75:65–66Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Commission (2002) Commission Decision 2002/225/EC, 15/03/2002, OJ L 75:62–63Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Commission (1991) Council Directive 91/942/EEC, 15/07/1991, OJ L 268:1-14Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Commission (1991) Council Directive 91/943/EEC, 22/07/1991, OJ L 268:15–34Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kat, M (1983) Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 49:417–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grune B, Tiebach R, Sauer U, Anderson D, de Leeuw W, Hartung T (2003) Letter of 14 February 2003 to the members of the 19th ESAC meeting on 28 February 2003. Shellfish toxins testing—in urgent need of application of 3RsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quilliam MA, Hess P, Dell’Aversano C (2001) Recent developments in the analysis of phycotoxins by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. In: de Koe WJ, Samson RA, Van Egmond HP, Gilbert J, Sabino M (eds) Mycotoxins and phycotoxins in perspective at the turn of the millennium. WJ de Koe, Wageningen, pp 383–391Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fernandez ML, Van Egmond HP (2003) European approaches to marine toxin control and harmonization. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on harmful algal management and mitigation, Qingdao, November 2001 (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Community Reference Laboratory on Marine Biotoxins (2001) Report on the EU-NRLs intercalibration exercise on DSP determination, April 2001. Community Reference Laboratory on Marine Biotoxins, VigoGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Egmond HP, Jonker KM, Poelman M, Scherpenisse P, Stern AG, Wezenbeek P, Bergwerff AA, Van den Top HJ (2004) Food Addit Contam (in press)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme (2003) FAPAS marine toxins pilot study, August 2003. Central Science Laboratory report, Sand Hutton, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Egmond HP, Mouriño A, Burdaspal PA, Bustos J, Legarda T, Mesego A, Paulsch WE, Salgado C, Van den Top HJ, Boenke A (1998) EUR report 18318. European Commission, Directorate-General Science, Research and Development, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    World Health Organization (1993) Solanine and chaconine. In: Toxicological evaluation of certain food additives and naturally occurring toxicants. 39th meeting of the JECFA. WHO Food Additives Series 30. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    European Commission (2002) Commission Decision 2002/75/EC, 01/02/2002, OJ L 33: 31–34Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiedenfeld H (2002) Problems with pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Background document prepared for working group 5 “Biotoxins” of CEN Technical Committee 275Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Edgar JA (2003) Chem Aust, May 2003Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    AOAC International (2000) AOAC official methods of analysis. AOAC official method 997.13. Glycoalkaloids (α-solanine and α-chaconine) in potato tubers. In: Trucksess MW (ed) Natural toxins. AOAC, Gaithersburg, pp 63–65Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wiedenfeld H (2003) University of Bonn (personal information)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wathelet JP, Marlier M, Severin M, Boenke A, Wagstaffe PJ (1995) The measurement of glucosinolates in rapeseeds. In: Van Egmond HP, Visconti A, Boenke A, Speijers GJA (eds) Mycotoxins and toxic plant components, Lisbon, October 1994. EUR report 16170 EN, Wiley, pp 299–304Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Food and Residue AnalysesNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations