|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 430
IS Assessment of Risk to Human Heady
The literature on risk assessment has expanded rapidly in recent
years. Some of the most comprehensive reports have been prepared by
committees of the National Academy of Sciences (1977, 1980a,b). This
chapter is only intended to supplement that literature with primary ref-
erence to risk analysis of the effects of diet, particularly nutrients,
on the process of carcinogenesis. In this context, risk is defined as
the probability that an individual will develop cancer within a given
time. Such risk can be estimated by examining retrospective data.
To determine dietary and nutritional effects on cancer, it is useful
to relate risk analysis to the basic concepts of carcinogenesis. That
is, chemically induced carcinogenesis may include (a) an initiation
phase, when chemicals or other agents possessing genotoxic activity
interact with the genome of somatic cells, and (b) a modification phase,
when a variety of events modify that process either simultaneously with,
or subsequent to, the initiation phase.
Initiators of carcinogenesis are generally mutagenic in one or more
systems (McCann et al., 1975; Purchase et al., 1978; Sugimura et al.,
1976) and form covalent adducts with DNA and other cellular macromole-
cules, usually after enzymatic metabolism (Boyland and Levi, 1935) to
chemically reactive metabolites (Magee et al., 1975; Miller, 1970~. If
such adducts or other interactions between DNA sites are not removed or
repaired, and if the cell, through replication, transmits this molecular
aberration to future cell generations, then the initiating event is con-
sidered to be irreversible.
In contrast to compounds that act as initiators, many other compounds
may modify either the initiating events per se, or the subsequent multi-
staged events responsible for the progression of the initiated cell to
the fully developed neoplastic cell (Slaga, 1980~. A wide variety of
chemicals can modify later stages of carcinogenesis. Many of them act
exclusively as modifiers; others are also initiators (complete carcino-
gens).
The process of carcinogenesis may be modified through a great many
diverse mechanisms, which can involve the intervention of several physio-
logical/biochemical systems, including changes in the function of the
enzymes, hormones, immune response, membrane transport and communication
activities, etc. Some modifiers have positive effects (i.e., they are
promoters or cocarcinogens), whereas others have negative effects (i.e.,
430
18-1
OCR for page 431
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 431
they are inhibitors of initiation, antipromoters, or anticocarcinogens)
on the progression of the initiated cell to the tumorigenic state. In
contrast to initiation, the progress of positive modification (promotion)
appears to be more reversible (Doll and Hill, 1964; Roe and Clack, 1963~.
This distinction between initiation and modification is necessary for
an understanding of the literature on risk analysis. Most such litera-
ture assumes that carcinogenic substances act as initiators. Models
developed for initiation, e.g., those for threshold response, additivity
vs. nonadditivity of toxic response, dose-response kinetics, and extent
of exposure ("hitness"), do not necessarily apply to assessment of risk
due to tumor modifiers. For example, one of the most straightforward
differences is the direct correlation between dose and tumor response for
initiators versus the inverse correlation between the tumor response and
the dose of certain modifiers such as several nutrients and certain
antioxidants.
Food may contain both initiators and modifiers of carcinogenesis (see
Chapters 12 and 14~. The great diversity of initiators to which humans
are exposed is suggested by the wide variety of mutagens with a broad
range of potencies present in the food we eat and the excrete produced
(Bruce et al., 1977; Sugimura, 1979~. There will always be an ample
supply of modifiers in food, including a variety of nonnutritive sub-
stances and most, if not all, nutrients (when consumed in amounts that
either exceed or are less than those required for optimum nutrition).
These modifiers may affect carcinogenesis by influencing hormone status
(Albert), 1980), immune response (Axelrod, 1980; Gross and Newberne,
1980), and the activity of carcinogen-metabolizing enzymes (Campbell,
1979; Conney, 1967~.
INITIATORS OF CARCINOGENESIS
In general, two procedures may be used to estimate acceptable levels
of risk for toxic compounds. One method estimates the acceptable daily
intake (ADI); the second is the "risk estimate" approach (National
Academy of Sciences, 1980a).
The ADI is an arbitrary estimate that "is not an estimate of risk nor
a guarantee of absolute safety" (National Academy of Sciences, 1980a).
It has been widely used for noncarcinogenic toxic chemicals and is based
on empirical data pertaining to acute toxicity. This procedure was modi-
fied by the Safe Drinking Water Committee to estimate acceptable daily
intake for contaminants in drinking water because of the paucity of data
for these compounds (National Academy of Sciences, 1977~. To establish
an ADI, the highest experimental dose that produces no observable effects
is decreased by an "uncertainty factor" or "safety factor" (ranging from
18-2
OCR for page 432
432 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
10 to 5,000) in order to minimize the probability of harm to the more
sensitive members of the general population. A commonly used safety
factor for chronic toxicity tests is 100, which assumes a factor of 10 to
allow for variability of individual responses within the test species and
a second factor of 10 for the assumed differences in response between the
test species and humans (Lehman and Fitzhugh, 1954~. Although the 100-
fold safety factor has been widely used to evaluate food additives and
other chemicals (World Health Organization, 1958, 1972), there are no
empirical data to support this specific factor. In general, the greater
the uncertainty in the experimental data, the larger the safety factor
(National Academy of Sciences, 1977~. The ADI method is unacceptable for
estimating risk for initiators because there is a great variation among
species in susceptibility to carcinogens, and because of the serious
consequences for regulatory action if the estimates are misleading
(National Academy of Sciences, 1980a).
The more appropriate approach for estimating risk for initiators of
carcinogenesis is to estimate the response of humans to low doses based
on data derived from exposure of laboratory animals to high doses. This
approach is comprised of two quantitative estimations: first, interpola-
tion from responses obtained at high doses to estimate the response at
low doses within the test species and, second, extrapolation of the data
from the test species to estimate the response in humans.
Several mathematical models have been proposed to interpolate from
high to low doses within the test species (Scientific Committee of the
Food Safety Council, 1978; National Academy of Sciences, 1980a). The
greatest uncertainty in these models is whether or not the kinetic char-
acteristics of the responses at high doses are similar to those at low
doses. This is a particularly important consideration when determining
whether there is a threshold. For example, is the risk directly propor-
tional to dosage level or is there a threshold dose below which the re-
sponse is negligible? Even though mechanistic arguments may be developed
in favor of a threshold effect (Gehring and Blau, 1977; see dose-response
curves in the report of Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Council,
1978), most mathematical models that have been used in the regulatory
process assume the nonexistence of a threshold for the general population
(National Academy of Sciences, 1980a). At the very least, were thresh-
olds to exist for individuals, there would undoubtedly be a distribution
of threshold values for which population parameters would need to be
estimated. That is considered impractical.
Assuming thresholds to be either nonexistent or unmeasurable, the
simplest mathematical model for high dose to low dose interpolation is
the linear dose-response model, wherein the response is directly propor-
tional to the dose at low levels of exposure. Mathematical models using
dose-response curves other than linear include the log-linear, log-normal,
and log-logistic models. Models based on 'target theory," which are used
for radiation-induced carcinogenesis, assume that the site of action has
18-3
OCR for page 433
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 433
a finite number of target sites that require some finite number of "hits"
to elicit a response (see review by Turner, 1975~. A more recent exten-
sion of this model was proposed by Cornf ield ( 1977 ~ . According to the
Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Council (1978), this model, in
which multiple hits are assumed and which has the strongest biological
foundation, provides a better description of dose-response data than the
single-hit model. This "gamma hit model" was found to fit dose-response
data for various types of toxic responses better than did some of the
simpler models (Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Council, 1978~.
There is little support for and use of other models that mathemati-
cally describe a tolerance distribution, because they do not take into
consideration the multistep nature of chemical carcinogenesis (Finney,
1952~. Some models (Druckrey, 1967; Peto et al., 1972; Pike, 1966)
include additional parameters such as the time from initiation of expo-
sure to the development of tumor or, where there is no response, the
total period of observation. This period of observation would include
the time during which chemical modifiers would be expected to exert their
effects.
As mentioned earlier, the greatest difficulty with all of these
models is the interpolation of the response to low doses. Traditional
bioassays in animals are limited to the use of levels high enough to
produce an observable response. Virtually none of the data resulting
from such bioassays can be used to determine the most appropriate model
for interpolation to low doses. For example, even though similar risk
estimates were obtained from three common dose-response models (the log-
normal, log-logistic, and single-hit models) over a 256-fold experimental
dose range at relatively high doses, the projected risks at lower doses
were increasingly divergent (Food and Drug Administration Committee on
Protocols for Safety Evaluation, 1971~. At a dose of 0.01%, which gave a
50% response, the single-hit model yielded a risk estimate 70,000 times
higher than that obtained with the log-normal model.
Seriously compounding this uncertainty even further is the selection
of the most appropriate basis for expressing the dose. When more mean-
ingful comparative pharmacokinetic data are unavailable, it becomes nec-
essary to select a common unit to express the dose received by various
small, short-lived rodent species in order to compare that dose to the
dose received by humans. There is no unanimous agreement on whether to
express the dose as quantity per unit of body weight, body surface area,
or over a lifetime. To calculate the risk to humans from saccharin, the
Committee for a Study on Saccharin and Food Safety Policy (National
Academy of Sciences, 1978) compared results from four models for high
dose to low dose interpolation (the single-hit, multistage, multihit, and
probit models) and expressed them as dose received from all three base
units (body surface area, body weight, and lifetime). The estimate of
risk derived from a Canadian study (Arnold et al., 1980) ranged from
0.001 x 10-6 lifetime cases to 5,200 x 10-6 lifetime cases for ex-
posed individuals, a range of 6 orders of magnitude. Most of this var-
iance was attributable to the differing risks predicted by linear and
probit models.
18-4
OCR for page 434
434 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the U.S. Congress re-
cently issued a report on the assessment of technologies for determining
cancer risks from the environment (Office of Technology Assessment,
1981~. Although this group accepted the nonthreshold extrapolation from
high dose measurements in animals to low dose estimates for humans, it
acknowledged that there can be as much as a fortyfold variation in the
risk estimate for low doses in humans, depending upon the scaling factor
used for determining the relationships between laboratory animals and
humans with respect to body size and rate of metabolism. Generally,
toxicologists adjust exposures for the differences in scale between spe-
cies on the basis of milligram per unit of body weight. This provides
the lowest estimate of risk to humans. When the experimental dose is
measured in parts per million (e.g., mg/kg diet, mg/cm3 air, or ma/
liter water) and humans are exposed through ingestion, the dose of the
chemical can be expressed as parts per million. This method is generally
used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, in some cases by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but it produces an estimate of
risk in humans 6 times greater than that estimated by the former method
if the mouse is the laboratory animal or 3 times greater if the rat is
used. Another method used by EPA takes the scale differences between
species into account and adjusts exposure on the basis of the relative
body surface areas of the test animal and humans. This gives a pro-
jected risk for humans 6 to 14 times higher than that of the first
method. The fourth approach is to adjust exposures on the basis of
relative body weight over a lifetime. This gives a projected risk
for humans 40 times higher than that of the first method.
An additional factor to be considered is the shape of the dose-
response curve. In general, linear interpolation provides the most
conservative estimate. This approach is used by most regulatory agencies
and is supported in the OTA report (Office of Technology Assessment,
1981).
The ultimate choice of a model for high to low dose interpolation is,
therefore, arbitrary. Not only is there great uncertainty in the mathe-
matical modeling procedures, but also there is no sound biological basis
for any of them (Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Council, 1978~.
The Safe Drinking Water Committee concluded that the most suitable model
may be the multistage model because of the multistep nature of carcino-
genesis and because of the model's relatively conservative estimate of
risk (National Academy of Sciences, 1980a). The committee sees no reason
to modify that conclusion except to suggest that it should be reserved
for initiators of carcinogenesis and that there should be awareness of
the large variability among the heterogeneous human population.
MODIFIERS OF CARCINOGENESIS
For modifiers of carcinogenesis a different approach may have to be
considered. There have been few systematic attempts to assess the risk
18-5
OCR for page 435
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 435
for such compounds. However, the models discussed above may provide some
leads to potentially useful approaches, such as time to tumor response,
originally defined as the latent period by Armitage and Doll (1961~. For
example, experiments using doses of the initiator producing a high tumor
response would be useful in studying dose-dependent effects of negative
modifiers; conversely, experiments that produce barely perceptible re-
sponses could be used to examine dose-dependent responses of enhancers of
carcinogenesis. Although more data are needed to develop this concept,
several investigators have proposed specific mathematical models that
incorporate time to tumor response (Druckrey, 1967; Peto et al., 1972;
Pike, 1966~. Moreover, continuous exposure to a carcinogen is con-
sidered in some models and time to tumor response has been incorporated
as a function of dose in order to yield the age-specific incidence rate
(An~itage and Doll, 1961; Crump, 1978; Hartley and Sielken, 1977~.
Although the time to tumor response may have considerable hypothetical
and experimental utility for modifiers of carcinogenesis, such models
are severely limited for use in population-based studies because of the
unknown contribution and variable distribution of initiators.
Furthermore, withdrawal of an initiator may intercept progression of
carcinogenesis (Boutwell 1964; Sivak, 1979; Teebor and Becker, 1971~.
Halving the dose-dependent progression of carcinogenesis should decrease
the final response by that amount, regardless of when such interception
occurred (Peso _ al., 1981~.
The Safe Drinking Water Committee concluded that conventional risk
extrapolation methodology accompanied by sufficient data and reasonable
models would predict risk to humans from studies in animals using low
doses with a precision varying from 1 to 2 orders of magnitude (National
Academy of Sciences, 1980a). Because of the differences in individual
susceptibility, the precision may, in fact, be much less.
USE OF MUTAGENICITY TESTS
As discussed in Chapter 3, the estimation of risk to humans from
exposure to mutagens is beset with uncertainties. First, it is difficult
to determine the dose of such substances in the diet. For example, the
general population may eat small or very small amounts of some extremely
strong mutagens (e.g., aflatoxin B1) and large quantities of certain
weak mutagens (e.g., flavonoids in vegetables), and the capability of our
biological defense mechanisms to protect us from either of these is not
well understood. Presumably, the effects of such exposure will be a
function of potency and dose, both of which extend over a very wide
range. To translate the product of potency and dose for a specific muta-
gen into an estimate of absolute risk for a human population, it is nec-
essary to know how to convert the values of mutagenicity obtained in
18-6
OCR for page 436
436 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
simple test systems into estimates of carcinogenicity. Unfortunately, no
way has been found to predict the carcinogenicity of any specific muta-
gen. One of the major difficulties in attempting such a determination is
the known interspecies variation in susceptibility to the effect of car-
cinogens and mutagens. Until the variables that control susceptibility
are better understood, it is impossible to extrapolate from tests for
mutagenicity to obtain estimates of carcinogenicity in humans. There-
fore, mutagenicity tests, which usually detect initiators, can be used
only as qualitative indicators of possible carcinogenicity. In the
absence of evidence derived from epidemiological studies, it is not
possible to estimate the likelihood that such substances will affect the
occurrence of cancer in humans.
USE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES
l
Chapter 3 describes the approach used in epidemiological studies to
assess the importance of exposures to carcinogens or risk factors such as
diet or dietary components. The risk that disease will occur in humans
during a given time period is measured by the incidence of that disease.
Incidence can be accumulated over a lifetime in a population to measure
cumulative incidence, which is approximately equivalent to the lifetime
risk of disease (Day, 1976~.
In cohort studies, the incidence of disease is measured directly:
the ratio of incidence in exposed and unexposed cohorts provides a
measure of the relative risk. The difference in incidence of disease
between exposed and unexposed groups provides a second measure of
risk--the attributable risk, which is simply the proportion of disease
that can be attributed to the exposure to that particular variable, if
it is causal. Such measurements of risk are valid only if the two popu-
lations compared differ only by the exposure (variable) being studied
and if other factors influencing the risk of disease are controlled in
the analysis. The derivation of the attributable risk is dependent on
the reasonable assumption that the exposed group would have had an
incidence similar to that of the unexposed group if it had not been
exposed.
In case-control studies, estimates of the relative risk can be de-
rived. A large body of statistical and epidemiological literature has
accumulated to confirm that the odds ratios derived from case-control
studies are approximately equivalent to the relative risk determined in
cohort studies. Indeed, the same terminology is normally used in both
types of studies. Estimates of population-attributable risk can also be
derived from case-control studies. Such estimates are equivalent to
those expected in the general population, provided that the cases and
the controls are representative of their respective target populations
so that estimates of exposure in the population can be derived from the
control series.
18-7
OCR for page 437
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 437
These estimates of risk do not take into account the extent to which
risk may vary with age. Almost invariably there is a latent period be-
tween first exposure and the expression of a risk. For many diseases,
risk may appear to remain constant with age, but risk may decrease in
older groups because the population may have lost most persons suscepti-
ble to the effect, especially if a risk factor or constellation of risk
factors is responsible for more than one disease and if these diseases
are relatively common in a population or because of a birth cohort effect
that is increasing. An additional complexity is that risk may vary in
populations because the extent of exposures to various risk factors may
vary with time. This may lead to different expectations of lifetime
incidence for different birth cohorts. In this respect, incidence among
different age groups during the same time period may not accurately
reflect the expected lifetime incidence in a population. For example,
there has been a decline in risk for tuberculosis in successive cohorts
in the United States. The risk for this disease in the present genera-
tion is largely restricted to elderly males. Another example is the
risk for lung cancer, which has been increasing with successive cohorts,
especially among males, so that cross-sectional incidence curves show
maximum risk at middle ages and declining risk at older ages. For cervi-
cal cancer, there have been complex birth cohort effects. For example,
those who were in their twenties during the depression years show a low
incidence of cervical cancer, whereas others, particularly those who are
now in their twenties, appear to have a higher incidence. Thus, it is
difficult to interpret trends in incidence. However, for most of the
cancers believed to be influenced by diet and nutrition, the incidence
has been relatively stable for many years. Therefore, estimates of the
proportion of these cancers attributable to dietary factors are not
likely to be severely in error because of differences in risk encountered
by different birth cohorts.
Because the causation of cancer is often multifactorial, the summa-
tion of estimates of the percentage of cancers attributable to individual
factors often exceeds 100%. However, this does not invalidate the con-
cept. Rather, it indicates that it may be possible to adopt different
approaches to preventing a number of cancers.
DIET-RELATED CARCINOGENESIS
Given the limitations of traditional methods of risk assessment using
data from experimental and epidemiological studies, what factors would be
the most appropriate to consider in analysis of risk for diet-related
carcinogenesis?
Because food contains both initiators and modifiers of carcinogene-
sis, there is a need for two very different kinds of risk analysis. For
the initiators (mostly nonnutritive components of food), the Safe Drink-
ing Water Committee's conclusion that a multistage mathematical model
18-8
OCR for page 438
438 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
would be most appropriate (National Academy of Sciences, 1980a) is still
considered to be valid. For the modifiers in food (including nutrients
and nonnutritive substances), a mathematical model that includes time to
tumor response may be preferable. For enhancers, an experimental titra-
tion of a dose of the modifier, which has a potency for increasing a
near-zero tumorigenic response, may be an acceptable approach. Con-
versely, for inhibitors, titration of the dose of the modifier with the
potency for eliminating nearly 100% of the response may be preferable.
Any experiment to determine the carcinogenic response to a dose of a
nutrient will be specific for the initiator, species, diet, and other
experimental variables used in the test.
Caution will have to be exercised when extrapolating the resultant
data to humans. In general, such extrapolation should initially be
limited to qualitative rather than to quantitative conclusions. Greater
confidence in the initial results may be gained by testing more initia-
tors, species, and diets. The necessity for testing additional diets
arises from the knowledge that there is an extremely broad array of nu-
trient-nutrient interactions. Thus, these reactions must be considered
when selecting the new diets to be tested.
As new data become available, it may become possible to do more quan-
titative extrapolation from the test species to humans with respect to
the risk from nutrient intake. The specific dose-response relationship
for the effects of nutrients on carcinogenesis will necessarily be limit-
ed by the requirement for nutrients for metabolic functions. This sug-
gests, therefore, that "risk" from nutrient intake should be defined in
terms of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) (National Academy of
Sciences, 1980c).
Beginning with the RDA's as the point of reference, the "risk" for a
nutrient could be defined in teems of RDA multiples (or fractions there-
of). This approach would introduce a broader perspective into the inter-
pretation of the "carcinogenic" effects of nutrients. It would acknowl-
edge that nutrients are essential and admit the existence of some level
of risk, even if that risk were negligible. The dose-response slope
constants will undoubtedly differ for various nutrients, and acceptable
upper limits of intake, however arbitrary, will vary broadly as functions
, , _ , .' , _ ~ .,
of the RDA's for different nutrients. Analogous phenomena for noncar-
cinogenic toxicity of nutrients have been evaluated elsewhere (Campbell
et al., 1980; National Nutrition Consortium, 1978~.
The Food and Nutrition Board's most recent edition of the Recommended
Dietary Allowances (National Academy of Sciences, 1980c) provides ranges
of intake for three vitamins and six minerals, the upper limits being
defined as "safe" on the basis of available information. But, it is
clear that epidemiological studies will be needed to confirm or deny
whatever risk estimates for nutrient intake may be obtained from experi-
ments in animals.
18-9
OCR for page 439
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 439
Doll and Peto
setting priorities
(1981) suggest that laboratory data may be used for
_ for regulation. However, they point out that even
tests in animals are unreliable, suffering not only from random errors,
but also probably from large systematic errors of unknown direction and
magnitude. Since there are thousands of chemicals that affect carcino-
genesis to some extent or other, in one laboratory test or another, it
is difficult to determine what, if any, practicable regulations should
be enacted on the basis of laboratory tests. Nevertheless, they suggest
~ ' "- '~ laboratory tests might be to
estimate risk for humans by multiplying the potency of each chemical
studied by estimates, however crude, of the degree to which humans are
exposed to that chemical. This would yield an index of risk for humans.
Resultant estimates might provide a basis from which priorities for regu-
latory action could be determined.
that an aDDroDriate use ot results trom
There is one major difficulty with this approach. Although experi-
mental or epidemiological studies may have identified risk factors as
either potentially hazardous or protective for humans, it is difficult to
label many of them as carcinogens or modifiers of carcinogenesis.
Furthermore, even if such assessments were possible, the feasibility of
modifying the diet of humans would have to be considered.
It is impossible to enact regulations pertaining to ties, except for
those few substances that clearly qualify as food additives, which are
currently regulated according to the provisions in the Delaney Clause
(see Section B). Thus, it may not be appropriate to assess priorities
for regulatory action at this time, especially since changes in the econ-
omy and in the sources of our food supply may well combine to impose
dietary changes upon us. The dietary changes now under way appear to be
reducing our dependence on foods from animal sources. It is likely that
there will be continued reduction in fats from animal sources and an
increasing dependence on vegetable and other plant products for protein
supplies. Hence, diets may contain increasing amounts of vegetable prod-
ucts, some of which may be protective against cancer. However, if it is
decided that changes have to be instigated, we should consider reducing
exposure of the population to total dietary fat and increasing exposure
to protective substances such as those found in fruits and vegetables,
while ensuring the maintenance of an ideal body weight for height and
well-balanced but varied nutrition.
CONTRIBUTION OF DIET TO OVERALL RISK OF CANCER
Higginson and Muir (1979) estimated the proportion of cancers related
to various aspects of the environment. They believed that precise pro-
portions of cancer incidence could not be attributed to diet, but they
did include dietary factors among the general heading "Lifestyle." They
estimated that possibly 30% of cancers in men and 60X in women in the
18-10
OCR for page 440
440 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
Birmingham and West Midland regions of England and Wales could be attrib-
uted to lifestyle. Wynder and Gori (1977) were more specific. On the
basis of international and intranational comparisons of cancer incidence,
the differences between U.S. mortality rates and the lowest reported
worldwide mortality rates for each site, and results of specific case-
control studies, they concluded that a little more than 40% of cancers in
men and almost 60% of cancers in women in the United States could be
attributed to dietary factors.
Using a similar approach, Doll and Peto (1981) were somewhat more
cautious. They agreed that a substantial proportion of cancers in both
sexes in the United States was likely to be attributable to dietary fac-
tors, but, by surveying the literature, they provided a rather wide range
of estimates (i.e., 10% to 70%) for the proportion of deaths from cancer
that could be reduced by practical dietary means. They stated that it
might not be possible to achieve a large reduction in the near future,
but that dietary modifications might eventually result in a 35% reduction
of deaths from cancer in the United States. This reduction was estimated
to include a 90% reduction in deaths from cancers of the stomach and
large bowel; a 50% reduction in deaths from cancers of the endometrium,
gallbladder, pancreas, and breast; a 20% reduction in deaths from cancers
of the lung, larynx, bladder, cervix, mouth, pharynx, and esophagus; and
a 10% reduction in deaths from other sites. These investigators placed a
greater degree of confidence in the projected 35% reduction in overall
mortality than in the estimated contribution from specific groups of
cancer sites.
Only two case-control studies of dietary factors and cancer provided
estimates of the proportion of cancers at specific sites that are attrib-
utable to dietary factors. On the basis of a case-control study of
breast cancer in Canada, Miller (1978) estimated that 27% of the risk of
breast cancer for women was attributable to total dietary fat intake.
For colorectal cancer, Jain et al. (1980) estimated that 41Z of the risk
for males and 44% of the risk for females was attributable to saturated
fat intake. Both of these estimates are probably too low, because arti-
facts in the diet tend to lead to low estimates of relative risk
(Marshall _ al., 1981~. This is particularly true for breast cancer,
since estimated effects of dietary factors based on current intake are
likely to be substantially below the true effect for a factor that is
operational earlier in life, possibly during adolescence.
The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that cancers of most
major sites are influenced by dietary patterns. However, the committee
concluded that the data are not sufficient to quantitate the contribution
of diet to the overall cancer risk or to determine the percent reduction
in risk that might be achieved by dietary modifications.
18-11
OCR for page 441
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 441
REFERENCES
Alberti, K. G. M. M. 1980. Metabolic pathways--Hormone-metabolite
interrelations. Pp. 5-19 in S. J. Karran and K. G. M. M. Alberti,
eds. Practical Nutritional Support. Pitman Medical Publishing Co.,
Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England.
Armitage, P., and R. Doll. 1961. Stochastic models for carcinogenesis.
Pp. 19-38 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathe-
matical Statistics and Probability. Volume 4, Contributions to Biol-
ogy and Problems of Medicine. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Arnold, D. L., C. A. Moodie, H. C. Grice, S. M. Charbonneau, B. Stavric,
B. T. Collins, P. F. McGuire, Z. Z. Zawidzka, and I. C. Munro. 1980.
Long-term toxicity of ortho-toluenesulfonamide and sodium saccharin
in the rat. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 52:113-152.
Axelrod, A. E. 1980. Nutrition in relation to immunity. Pp. 578-591 in
R. S. Goodhart and M. E. Shils, eds. Modern Nutrition in Health and
Disease. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia.
Boutwell, R. K. 1964. Some biological aspects of skin carcinogenesis.
Prog. Exp. Tumor Res. 4 :207-250.
Boyland, E., and A. A. Levi. 1935. Metabolism of polycyclic compounds.
I. Production of dihydroxydihydroanthracene from anthracene. Bio-
chem. J. 29:2679-2683.
Bruce, W. R., A. J. Varghese, R. Furrer, and P. C. Land. 1977. A mutagen
in the feces of normal humans. Pp. 1641-1646 in H. H. Hiatt, J. E.
Watson, and J. D. Winsten, eds. Origins of Human Cancer, Book C.
Human Risk Assessment. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring
Harbor, N.Y.
Campbell, T. C. 1979. Influence of nutrition on metabolism of carcino-
gens. Adv. Nutr. Res. 2:29-55.
Campbell, T. C., R. G. Allison, and C. J. Carr. 1980. ~easibility of
Identifying Adverse Health Effects of Vitamins and Essential Minerals
in Man. Prepared for Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D. C. under Contract Number FDA 223-75-2090. Life
Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Ex-
perimental Biology, Bethesda, Md. 76 pp.
18-12
OCR for page 442
442 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
Conney, A. H. 1967. Pharmacological implications of microsomal enzyme
induction. Pharmaco1. Rev. 19:317-366.
Cornfield, J. 1977. Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science 198:693-699.
Crump, K. S. 1978. Low dose extrapolation of animal carcinogenicity
data. Biometrics 34:155. Abstract 2568.
Day, N. E. 1976. A new measure of age standardized incidence, the cumu-
lative rate. Pp. 443-445 in J. Waterhouse, C. Muir, P. Correa, and
J. Powell, eds. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Volume 3. IARC
Scientific Publications No. 15, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, Lyon, Prance.
Doll, R., and A. B. Hill. 1964. Mortality in relation to smoking: Ten
years' observations of British doctors. Br. Med. J. 1:1399-1410;
1460-1467.
Doll, R., and R. Peto. 1981. The causes of cancer: Quantitative esti-
mates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J.
Natl. Cancer Inst. 66:1192-1308.
Druckrey, H. F. 1967. Quantitative aspects in chemical carcinogenesis.
Pp. 60-77 in R. Truhaut, ed. Potential Carcinogenic Hazards from
Drugs: Evaluation of Risks. UICC Monograph Series, Volume 7,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York.
Finney, D. J. 1952. Probit Analysis. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University
Press, London and New York. 318 pp.
Food and Drug Administration Committee on Protocols for Safety Evaluation.
1971. Panel on Carcinogenesis Report on Cancer Testing in the Safety
Evaluation of Food Additives and Pesticides. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 20:419-438.
Gehring, P. J., and G. E. Blau. 1977. Mechanisms of carcinogenesis:
Dose response. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1~1~:163-179.
Gross, R. L., and P. M. Newberne. 1980. Role of nutrition in immuno-
logic function. Physiol. Rev. 60:188-302.
Hartley, H. 0., and R. L. Sielken, Jr. 1977. Estimation of safe doses
in carcinogenic experiments. Biometrics 33:1-30.
Higginson, J., and C. S. Muir. 1979. Environmental carcinogenesis:
Misconceptions and limitations to cancer control. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 63:1291-1298.
18-13
OCR for page 443
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 443
Jain, M., G. M. Cook, F. G. Davis, M. G. Grace, G. R. Howe, and A. B.
Miller. 1980. A case-control study of diet and colo-rectal cancer.
Int. J. Cancer 26:757-768.
Lehman, A. J., and 0. G. Fitzhugh. 1954. 100-fold margin of safety.
Q. Bull. Assoc. Food Drug Off. U. S. 18:33-35.
Magee, P. N., A. E. Pegg, and P. F. Swann. 1975. Molecular mechanisms
of chemical carcinogenesis. Pp. 329-419 in E. Grundmann, ed.
Handbuch der Allgemeinen Pathologie, Bd. 6, T. 6., Geschwlilste-
Tumors II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York.
Marshall, J. R., R. Priore, S. Graham, and J. Brasure. 1981. On the
distortion of risk estimates in multiple exposure level case-control
studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 113:464-473.
McCann, J., E. Choi, E. Yamasaki, and B. N. Ames. 1975. Detection of
carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: Assay of
300 chemicals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 72:5135-5139.
Miller, A. B. 1978. An overview of hormone-associated cancers. Cancer
Res. 38:3985-3990.
Miller, J. A. 1970. Carcinogenesis by chemicals: An overview--G. H. A.
Clowes memorial lecture. Cancer Res. 30:559-576.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Chemical contaminants: Safety and
risk assessment. Pp. 19-62 in Drinking Water and Health. A report
prepared by the Safe Drinking Water Committee. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Academy of Sciences. 1978. Saccharin: Technical Assessment of
Risks and Benefits. Part 1 of a 2-part study of the Committee for a
Study on Saccharin and Food Safety Policy. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. t240] pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980a. Problems of risk estimation.
Pp. 25-65 in Drinking Water and Health. Volume 3. A report of the
Safe Drinking Water Committee. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.
National Academy of Sciences. 198Ob. Regulating Pesticides. A report
prepared by the Committee on Prototype Explicit Analyses for
Pesticides. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 288 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980c. Recommended Dietary Allowances,
9th edition. A report of the Con~rnittee on Dietary Allowances, Food
and Nutrition Board. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
187 pp.
18-14
OCR for page 444
444 DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER
National Nutrition Consortium. 1978. Vitamin-Mineral Safety, Toxicity,
and Misuse. Report of the Committee on Safety, Toxicity, and Misuse
of Vitamins and Trace Minerals. American Dietetic Association,
Chicago, Ill. 36 pp.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1981. Assessment of Technologies for
Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment. Office of Technology
Assessment, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. 242 pp.
Peto, R., P. N. Lee, and W. S. Paige. 1972. Statistical analysis of the
bioassay of continuous carcinogens. Br. J. Cancer 26:258-261.
Peto, R., R. Doll, J. D. Buckley, and M. B. Sporn. 1981. Can dietary
beta-carotene materially reduce human cancer rates? Nature
290:201-208.
Pike, M. C. 1966. A method of analysis of a certain class of experiments
in carcinogenesis. Biometrics 22:142-161.
Purchase, I. F. H., E. Longstaff, J. Ashby, J. A. Styles, D. Anderson,
P. A. Lefevre, and F. R. Westwood. 1978. An evaluation of 6 short-
term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens. Br. J. Cancer
37:873-959.
Roe, F. J. C., and J. Clack. 1963. Two-stage carcinogenesis: Effect of
length of promoting treatment on the yield of benign and malignant
tumours. Br. J. Cancer 17:596-604.
Scientific Committee, Food Safety Council. 1978. Proposed system for
food safety assessment. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 16(Suppl. 2):1-136.
Sivak, A. 1979. Cocarcinogenesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 560:67-89.
Slaga, T. J. 1980. Cancer: Etiology, mechanisms, and prevention--A
summary. Pp. 24 3-262 in T. J. Slaga, ed. Carcinogenesis--A Com-
prehensive Survey. Volume 5: Modifiers of Chemical Carcinogenesis.
Raven Press, New York.
Sugimura, T., S. Sato, M. Nagao, T. Yahagi, T. Matsushima, Y. Seino,
M. Takeuchi, and T. Kawachi. 1976. Overlapping of carcinogens and
mutagens. Pp. 191-213 in P. N. Magee, S. Takayama, T. Sugimura, and
T. Matsushima, eds. Fundamentals in Cancer Prevention. University
Park Press, Baltimore, London, and Tokyo.
Teebor, G. W., and F. F. Becker. 1971. Regression and persistence of
hyperplastic hepatic nodules induced by N-2-fluorenylacetamide and
their relationship to hepatocarcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 31:1-3.
Turner, M. E., Jr. 1975. Some classes of hit-theory models. Math.
Bioscience 23:219-235.
18-15
OCR for page 445
Assessment of Risk to Human Health 445
World Health Organization. 1958. Procedures for the Testing of Inten-
tional Food Additives to Establish Their Safety for Use. Second
Report of the Joint FAD/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
W.H.O. Tech. Rep. Ser. 144:1-19.
World Health Organization. 1972. Evaluation of Certain Food Additives
and the Contaminants Mercury, Lead, and Cadmium. Sixteenth Report of
the Joint FAD/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. W.H.O. Tech.
Rep. Ser. 505:1-32.
Wynder, E. L., and G. B. Gori. 1977. Contribution of the environment
to cancer incidence: An epidemiologic exercise. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 58:825-832.
18-16
OCR for page 446
Representative terms from entire chapter:
food safety
