Do Actual Intakes Ever Equal Potential Intakes?
A variety of methods is available for estimating the intake of chemicals from the diet. A division may be made between those methods which measure, by chemical analysis, the actual intake either of individuals or the “average” consumer, for example duplicate diet and total diet studies, and those which estimate potential intakes either by constructing hypothetical scenarios, for example per capita estimates or by combining food consumption data with concentration data supplied by food manufacturers. This latter method may give actual intakes if there is no degradation of the chemical during storage or subsequent preparation in the home. Even within the same basic study method there are a number of variables which may influence the final intake figure : the analytical method used and assumptions made about concentrations which are below the limit of determination of the analytical methodology, the degree of preparation of the food, whether concentration data are available for all brands of a processed food etc. Although it is, therefore, only possible to estimate actual intakes, with care it is possible to achieve a reasonable approximation to the real situation.
KeywordsSafety Standard Actual Intake Diet Study Diary Study Colored Food
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Norman JA (1987) How comparable are published data on lead and cadmium intakes. Environmental Health 20 Trace elements in human health and disease: extended abstracts from the second Nordic symposium, 17–21 August, Odense, Denmark, pp 196–199Google Scholar
- 3.Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1979) Food Additives and Contaminants Committee interim report on the review of the colouring matter in food regulations 1973, FAC/REP/29, HMSOGoogle Scholar
- 4.Sherlock JC, Walters CB (1983) Dietary intake of heavy metals and its estimation. Chem Ind July: 505–508Google Scholar
- 6.Hansen SC (1979) Conditions of use of food additives based on a budget for an acceptable daily intake. J Food Protection 42: 429–434Google Scholar