A pragmatic possible approach to the prioritization of chemical carcinogens occurring as food contaminants is described, based on the carcinogenic risk to the popula tion. This should be of value in ensuring that resources for assessment and management of carcinogens in food are directed to the most important areas with regard to carcinogenic risk to the population. Key components of this approach are an assessment of the carcinogenic hazard to humans combined with estimations of intakes per person and of the proportion of the population exposed. These are used to derive an index referred to as the Population Carcinogenic Index. Concerning the hazard assessment expert judgement is used to place the chemical in one of five categories. The highest category is for chemical carcinogens that are believed to act by a genotoxic mechanism. It is recognised that such com pounds may vary enormously with respect to their potency and various approaches to ranking carcinogens on the basis of potency are reviewed. The approach adopted is to subdivide the genotoxic carcinogens category into high, medium and low potency based on the TD 50 value. Methods of estimating intakes and exposed populations are considered and an approach which groups these into broad categories is developed. The hazard and exposure assessments are then combined to derive the Population Carcinogenicity Index.
Aflatoxins in Nuts, Dried Figs and Dried Fig Products Regulations 1992, SI No. 3236 HMSO, London.
2.
Ashby J., Tennant RWDefinitive relationship among chemical structure carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the US NPT. Mut Res1991; 257: 229-306.
3.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity; an updating of IARC Monographs1-42. Supplement 7, IARC, Lyon (1987).
4.
Woodward KN, McDonald A., Joshi S.Ranking of chemicals for carcinogenic potency - a comparative study of 13 carcinogenic chemicals and an examination of some of the issues involved . Carcinogenesis1991; 12: 1061-6.
5.
Ashby J. et al. A scheme for classifying carcinogens. Reg ToxPharmacol1990; 12: 270-95.
Nesnow S.A multifactor ranking scheme for comparing the carcinogenic activity of chemicals . Mutat Res1990; 239: 83-116.
8.
Ames BN, Magaw R., Gold LSRanking possible carcinogenic hazards. Science1987; 236: 271-280.
9.
Peto R. et al. The TD50. A proposed general convention for the numerical description of the carcinogenic potency of chemicals in chronic exposure animal experiments. Environ Health Perspect1984; 58: 1-8.
10.
Tennant RWStratification of rodent carcinogenicity bioassay results to reflect relative human hazard. Mut Res1993; 286: 111-8.
11.
Gold LS et al. A carcinogenic potency database of the standardised results of animal bioassays. Environ Health Perspect1984; 58: 9-319.
12.
Gold LS et al. Chronological supplement to the carcinogenicity potency database: standardised results of animal bioassays published through December 1982. Environ Health Perspect1986; 67: 161-200.
13.
Gold LS et al. Second chronological supplement to the carcinogenicity potency database: standardised results of animal bioassays published through December 1984 and by the National Toxicology Program through May 1986. Environ Health Perspect1987; 74: 237-329.
14.
Gold LS et al. Third chronological supplement to the carcinogenicity potency database: standardised results of animal bioassays published through December 1986 and by the National Toxicology Program through June 1987. Environ Health Perspect1990, 84: 215-86.
15.
Gold LS et al. The carcinogenic potency database, Fourth chronological supplement including results of animal bioassays published in the general literature through 1988 and by the NTP through 1989. Environ Health Perspect1993; 100: 65-135.
16.
Gold LS et al. Sixth plot of the carcinogenic potency database; results of animal bioassays published in the general literature 1989-1990 and by the National Toxicology Programme 1990-1993. Environ Health Perspect1995; 103: Suppl 83-122.
17.
Krewski D., Gaylor DW, Soms AP, Szyszkowicz M.Correlation between carcinogenic potency and maximum tolerated dose: implications for risk assessment. In: Issues in Risk Assessment1993; National Academy Press, Washington DC.
18.
Krewski D., Gaylor DW, Soms AP, Szyszkowicz M.An overview of the report: Correlation between carcinogenic potency and maximum tolerated dose: implications for risk assessment. Risk Analysis1993; 13: 383-97.
19.
Allen B., Crump K., Shipp A.Carcinogenic potencies of chemicals in animals and humans. Risk Analysis1988; 8: 531-44.
20.
Crump K., Allen B., Shipp A.Choice of a dose measure for extrapolating carcinogenic risk from animals to humans: an empirical investigation of 23 chemicals. Health Physics1989; 57 (Supp 1): 387-93.
21.
Health and Welfare, Canada.Determination of 'toxic' under paragraph 11(c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. First Edition. 1992Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Environmental Health Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario.
22.
Weil CSStatistics versus safety factors and scientific judgement in the evaluation for man. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol1992; 2: 454-63.
23.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food Chemical Surveillance 1989-1990. Food. Surveillance Paper No 35. 1993HMSO, London, 1993. ISBN 0 11 242944 0.
24.
Gregory J., Tyler H., Wiseman M.The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults. 1990HMSO, London.
25.
Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Department of Health, Report on Health and Social Subjects. No: 42 1991HMSO, London.
26.
Lovell DP, Thomas G.Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearised multistage model. Human and Experimental Toxicology1996 ; 15: 87-104..
27.
McClellan ROAn annotated review of the NAS/ NRC report, Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment. CIIT Activities1994; 14: 1-4.
