Explore the vast range of titles available.

Nowadays, there is a growing concern about contamination of toxic metals (TM) in pet food due to the great potential for health risks of these elements. TM concentrations in commercial pet foods (n = 100) as well as in ingredients used in their composition (n = 100) were analyzed and compared to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maximum tolerable level (MTL), and the TM concentrations found in the different sources of carbohydrate, protein, and fat were compared. The TM concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma with optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Concentrations above the MTL for aluminum, mercury, lead, uranium, and vanadium were observed in both dog and cat foods, and the percentage of dog foods that exceeded the MTL of these TM were: 31.9%; 100%; 80.55%; 95.83%; and 75%, respectively, and in cat foods: 10.71%; 100%; 32.14%; 85.71%; 28.57%, respectively. The MTL values of these TMs and the mean values in dog foods (mg/kg dry matter basis) (MTL [mean ± standard deviation]) were: aluminum: 200 (269.17 ± 393.74); mercury: 0.27 (2.51 ± 1.31); lead: 10 (12.55 ± 4.30); uranium: 10 (76.82 ± 28.09); vanadium: 1 (1.35 ± 0.69), while in cat foods were: aluminum: 200 (135.51 ± 143.95); mercury: 0.27 (3.47 ± 4.31); lead: 10 (9.13 ± 5.42); uranium: 10 (49.83 ± 29.18); vanadium: 1 (0.81 ± 0.77). Dry foods presented higher concentrations of most TM (P < 0.05) than wet foods (P < 0.05). Among the carbohydrate sources, there were the highest levels of all TM except cobalt, mercury, and nickel in wheat bran (P < 0.05), while among the protein sources, in general, animal by-products had higher TM concentrations than plant-based ingredients. Pork fat had higher concentrations of arsenic, mercury, and antimony than fish oil and poultry fat. It was concluded that the pet foods evaluated in this study presented high concentrations of the following TM: aluminum, mercury, lead, uranium, and vanadium.

A great variety of functional foods, nutraceuticals, or foods with bioactive compounds are provided nowadays to consumers. Aware of the importance of the safety aspects, the food industry has to comply with different legal requirements around the world. In this review, the European regulatory framework for food-related bioactive compounds is summarized. The term ‘bioactive compound’ is not defined in the European regulations, however, since they can be part of food supplements, fortified foods, or novel food, they are included within the legal requirements of those corresponding types of foods or supplements. Lists of authorized compounds/foods appear in the correspondent regulations, however, when a new compound/food is going to be launched into the market, its safety assessment is essential. Although the responsibility for the safety of these compounds/foods lies with the food business operator placing the product on the market, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carries out scientific evaluations to assess the risks for human health. To facilitate this procedure, different guidelines exist at the European level to explain the tier toxicity testing approach to be considered. This approach divides the evaluation into four areas: (a) toxicokinetics; (b) genotoxicity; (c) subchronic and chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity; and (d) reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Nanopesticides are nanostructures with two to three dimensions between 1 to 200 nm, used to carry agrochemical ingredients (AcI). Because of their unique properties, the loading of AcI into nanoparticles offers benefits when compared to free pesticides. However, with the fast development of new engineered nanoparticles for pests’ control, a new type of environmental waste is being produced. This paper describes the nanopesticides sources, the harmful environmental and health effects arising from pesticide exposure. The potential ameliorative impact of nanoparticles on agricultural productivity and ecosystem challenges are extensively discussed. Strategies for controlled release and stimuli-responsive systems for slow, sustained, and targeted AcI and genetic material delivery are reported. Special attention to different nanoparticles source, the environmental behavior of nanopesticides in the crop setting, and the most recent advancements and nanopesticides representative research from experimental results are revised. This review also addresses some issues and concerns in developing, formulating and toxicity pesticide products for environmentally friendly and sustainable agriculture.

In the last four decades, nanotechnology has gained momentum with no sign of slowing down. The application of inventions or products from nanotechnology has revolutionised all aspects of everyday life ranging from medical applications to its impact on the food industry. Nanoparticles have made it possible to significantly extend the shelf lives of food product, improve intracellular delivery of hydrophobic drugs and improve the efficacy of specific therapeutics such as anticancer agents. As a consequence, nanotechnology has not only impacted the global standard of living but has also impacted the global economy. In this review, the characteristics of nanoparticles that confers them with suitable and potentially toxic biological effects, as well as their applications in different biological fields and nanoparticle-based drugs and delivery systems in biomedicine including nano-based drugs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are discussed. The possible consequence of continuous exposure to nanoparticles due to the increased use of nanotechnology and possible solution is also highlighted.

The US food supply is increasingly associated with diet-related diseases, toxicity, cancer, and other health harms. These public health concerns are partly attributable to a loophole in federal law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the premarket safety of ingredients regulated as food additives but allows the food industry to self-regulate and determine which substances to classify as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) based on undisclosed data and conclusions that the FDA never sees. Furthermore, the FDA lacks a formal approach for reviewing food additives and GRAS substances already found in the food supply. Substances in the food supply thus include innocuous ingredients (e.g., black pepper), those that are harmful at high levels (e.g., salt), those that are of questionable safety (e.g., potassium bromate), and those that are unknown to the FDA and the public. A recent court decision codified these gaps in the FDA’s current approach, leaving states to try to fill the regulatory void. The FDA and Congress should consider several policy options to ensure that the FDA is meeting its mission to ensure a safe food supply. ( Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307755 )

Nicotine pouches are oral products that deliver nicotine without containing tobacco. Previous studies mainly focused on the determination of known tobacco toxicants, while yet no untargeted analysis has been published on unknown constituents, possibly contributing to toxicity. Furthermore, additives might enhance product attractiveness. We therefore performed an aroma screening with 48 different nicotine-containing and two nicotine-free pouches using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry, following acidic and basic liquid–liquid extraction. For toxicological assessment of identified substances, European and international classifications for chemical and food safety were consulted. Further, ingredients listed on product packages were counted and grouped by function. Most abundant ingredients comprised sweeteners, aroma substances, humectants, fillers, and acidity regulators. 186 substances were identified. For some substances, acceptable daily intake limits set by European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives are likely exceeded by moderate pouch consumption. Eight hazardous substances are classified according to the European CLP regulation. Thirteen substances were not authorized as food flavorings by EFSA, among them impurities such as myosmine and ledol. Three substances were classified by International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The two nicotine-free pouches contain pharmacologically active ingredients such as ashwagandha extract and caffeine. The presence of potentially harmful substances may point to the need for regulation of additives in nicotine-containing and nicotine-free pouches that could be based on provisions for food additives. For sure, additives may not pretend positive health effects in case the product is used.

Active food packaging is currently of high demand in food industries to provide protections to food. Food packaging is not only used to store and protect food from the environment, but also to provide functional values with the incorporation of active agent. Essential oils (EOs) extracted from a variety of plants represent active ingredients of natural origin which provide numerous benefits to food, aromatherapy, pharmaceutical, and food packaging industries due to their functional properties. Numerous researches have been carried out in developing active food packaging such as insect repellent packaging containing essential oils. Insect repellent packaging could create safety measures by repelling insect from exterior environment or the inhibition of larvae from food within. In this paper, different application of EOs on different types of food packaging, applications, processing methods, migration of active compounds and performance of insect repellency are reviewed. Future perspectives and applications of insect repellence using safe, natural and more effective strategies are also discussed. EOs as the active insect repellent agents in food packaging offer great opportunities to protect the quality of food. Some important factors such as legislative concerns (e.g. toxicity test, migration of active substances from packaging materials), economics, and further study on the release period of active agent to the environment should be considered to successfully implement insect repellent agents in food packaging.

This review presents a perspective on the research trends and solutions from recent years in the domain of antimicrobial packaging materials. The antibacterial, antifungal, and antioxidant activities can be induced by the main polymer used for packaging or by addition of various components from natural agents (bacteriocins, essential oils, natural extracts, etc.) to synthetic agents, both organic and inorganic (Ag, ZnO, TiO2 nanoparticles, synthetic antibiotics etc.). The general trend for the packaging evolution is from the inert and polluting plastic waste to the antimicrobial active, biodegradable or edible, biopolymer film packaging. Like in many domains this transition is an evolution rather than a revolution, and changes are coming in small steps. Changing the public perception and industry focus on the antimicrobial packaging solutions will enhance the shelf life and provide healthier food, thus diminishing the waste of agricultural resources, but will also reduce the plastic pollution generated by humankind as most new polymers used for packaging are from renewable sources and are biodegradable. Polysaccharides (like chitosan, cellulose and derivatives, starch etc.), lipids and proteins (from vegetal or animal origin), and some other specific biopolymers (like polylactic acid or polyvinyl alcohol) have been used as single component or in blends to obtain antimicrobial packaging materials. Where the package’s antimicrobial and antioxidant activities need a larger spectrum or a boost, certain active substances are embedded, encapsulated, coated, grafted into or onto the polymeric film. This review tries to cover the latest updates on the antimicrobial packaging, edible or not, using as support traditional and new polymers, with emphasis on natural compounds.

Hexane is a solvent used extensively in the food industry for the extraction of various products such as vegetable oils, fats, flavours, fragrances, colour additives or other bioactive ingredients. As it is classified as a “processing aid”, it does not have to be declared on the label under current legislation. Therefore, although traces of hexane may be found in final products, especially in processed products, its presence is not known to consumers. However, hexane, and in particular the n-hexane isomer, has been shown to be neurotoxic to humans and has even been listed as a cause of occupational diseases in several European countries since the 1970s. In order to support the European strategy for a toxic-free environment (and toxic-free food), it seemed important to collect scientific information on this substance by reviewing the available literature. This review contains valuable information on the nature and origin of the solvent hexane, its applications in the food industry, its toxicological evaluation and possible alternatives for the extraction of natural products. Numerous publications have investigated the toxicity of hexane, and several studies have demonstrated the presence of its toxic metabolite 2,5-hexanedione (2,5-HD) in the urine of the general, non-occupationally exposed population. Surprisingly, a tolerable daily intake (TDI) has apparently never been established by any food safety authority. Since hexane residues are undoubtedly found in various foods, it seems more than necessary to clearly assess the risks associated with this hidden exposure. A clear indication on food packaging and better information on the toxicity of hexane could encourage the industry to switch towards one of the numerous other alternative extraction methods already developed.

Background/Objectives: The global health functional food (HFF) market is expanding rapidly, driven by increasing consumer interest in preventive healthcare and evidence-based nutrition. The Republic of Korea has established a systematic regulatory framework for HFFs, through the Individually Recognized Functional Ingredient (IRFI) system introduced in 2004. Designed to accommodate innovative physiologically active ingredients beyond standardized categories, the IRFI system is increasingly discussed as a regulatory model for evidence-based functional foods. This study examines the IRFI system within a comparative regulatory context and evaluates its implications for drug–dietary supplement interactions (DDSIs). Methods: Functional categories were defined according to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Data on Korean IRFIs were obtained from the Food Safety Korea database. A literature search was conducted in PubMed using regulatory keywords which identified through Google searches. Regulatory frameworks in the United States, European Union, Japan, and China were comparatively analyzed. DDSIs were reviewed based on MFDS-approved IRFIs and the relevant literature. Results: The IRFI represents a hybrid regulatory model that combines rigorous pre-market scientific evaluation, including GLP-compliant safety testing and human clinical evidence, with regulatory incentives such as expedited review and temporary market exclusivity. Compared with post-market-oriented systems in the United States and Japan, the stringent authorization framework in the European Union, and the dual-track health food system in Chinese, IRFI integrates clinical evidence requirements within a structured pre-market approval process. Conclusions: The IRFI framework establishes a comparatively stringent evidentiary standard for functional foods while providing a structured basis for evaluating potential DDSIs. Its applicability depends on alignment and mutual recognition of scientific and clinical evaluation criteria across regulatory jurisdictions. DDSIs were reviewed based on MFDS-approved IRFIs and the relevant literature.