Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition

M.J. Tijhuis, M. Pohjola, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, J. Luteijn, S. Magnusson, G.J. Odekerken-Schröder, M. Poto, J. Tuomisto, O. Ueland, B. White, F. Holm, H. Verhagen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-93
Number of pages17
JournalFood and Chemical Toxicology
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2012

Keywords

  • Benefit-risk
  • Food & nutrition
  • Best practice
  • Assessment
  • Management
  • Shared understanding
  • MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE
  • HEALTH
  • ACID

Cite this

Tijhuis, M. J., Pohjola, M., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Kalogeras, N., Leino, O., Luteijn, J., ... Verhagen, H. (2012). Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.044
Tijhuis, M.J. ; Pohjola, M. ; Gunnlaugsdottir, H. ; Kalogeras, N. ; Leino, O. ; Luteijn, J. ; Magnusson, S. ; Odekerken-Schröder, G.J. ; Poto, M. ; Tuomisto, J. ; Ueland, O. ; White, B. ; Holm, F. ; Verhagen, H. / Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition. In: Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2012 ; Vol. 50, No. 1. pp. 77-93.
@article{678e70f68889476fbc0be1d93121367c,
title = "Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition",
abstract = "An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Benefit-risk, Food & nutrition, Best practice, Assessment, Management, Shared understanding, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, HEALTH, ACID",
author = "M.J. Tijhuis and M. Pohjola and H. Gunnlaugsdottir and N. Kalogeras and O. Leino and J. Luteijn and S. Magnusson and G.J. Odekerken-Schr{\"o}der and M. Poto and J. Tuomisto and O. Ueland and B. White and F. Holm and H. Verhagen",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.044",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "77--93",
journal = "Food and Chemical Toxicology",
issn = "0278-6915",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "1",

}

Tijhuis, MJ, Pohjola, M, Gunnlaugsdottir, H, Kalogeras, N, Leino, O, Luteijn, J, Magnusson, S, Odekerken-Schröder, GJ, Poto, M, Tuomisto, J, Ueland, O, White, B, Holm, F & Verhagen, H 2012, 'Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition', Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.044

Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition. / Tijhuis, M.J.; Pohjola, M.; Gunnlaugsdottir, H.; Kalogeras, N.; Leino, O.; Luteijn, J.; Magnusson, S.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.J.; Poto, M.; Tuomisto, J.; Ueland, O.; White, B.; Holm, F.; Verhagen, H.

In: Food and Chemical Toxicology, Vol. 50, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 77-93.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition

AU - Tijhuis, M.J.

AU - Pohjola, M.

AU - Gunnlaugsdottir, H.

AU - Kalogeras, N.

AU - Leino, O.

AU - Luteijn, J.

AU - Magnusson, S.

AU - Odekerken-Schröder, G.J.

AU - Poto, M.

AU - Tuomisto, J.

AU - Ueland, O.

AU - White, B.

AU - Holm, F.

AU - Verhagen, H.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Benefit-risk

KW - Food & nutrition

KW - Best practice

KW - Assessment

KW - Management

KW - Shared understanding

KW - MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE

KW - HEALTH

KW - ACID

U2 - 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.044

DO - 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.044

M3 - Review article

VL - 50

SP - 77

EP - 93

JO - Food and Chemical Toxicology

JF - Food and Chemical Toxicology

SN - 0278-6915

IS - 1

ER -