Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’
Abstract This letter is in response to a recent paper by Millstone and Dawson (2019) in which the authors criticise the re-evaluation of the high intensity sweetener aspartame in 2013 by the former EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food, on the grounds that EFSA did not fo...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-04-01
|
| Series: | Archives of Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13690-020-0395-4 |
| _version_ | 1818760085200961536 |
|---|---|
| author | George E. N. Kass Federica Lodi |
| author_facet | George E. N. Kass Federica Lodi |
| author_sort | George E. N. Kass |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract This letter is in response to a recent paper by Millstone and Dawson (2019) in which the authors criticise the re-evaluation of the high intensity sweetener aspartame in 2013 by the former EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food, on the grounds that EFSA did not follow its own procedures for its risk assessment. Moreover, the authors claim that the appraisal of the available studies was asymmetrically more alert to putative false positives than to possible false negatives. In this letter it is shown that the methodology for collection and selection of the scientific information used as a basis for the aspartame risk assessment, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied were defined a priori and documented in the published opinion. Furthermore, the Panel applied a Weight-of-Evidence approach combined with an analysis of the biological relevance of the appraised and validated evidence for its analysis, integration and interpretation, followed by an uncertainty analysis. Finally, an analysis of the distribution of negative versus positive outcome of the studies in the context of reliability showed that the claim of bias in the scientific risk assessment of aspartame is not substantiated. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T06:53:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-75dd6a19659f4eac944117589ae8bc77 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2049-3258 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T06:53:00Z |
| publishDate | 2020-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Archives of Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-75dd6a19659f4eac944117589ae8bc772022-12-21T21:17:16ZengBMCArchives of Public Health2049-32582020-04-017811210.1186/s13690-020-0395-4Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’George E. N. Kass0Federica Lodi1Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit, European Food Safety AuthorityFood Ingredients and Packaging Unit, European Food Safety AuthorityAbstract This letter is in response to a recent paper by Millstone and Dawson (2019) in which the authors criticise the re-evaluation of the high intensity sweetener aspartame in 2013 by the former EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food, on the grounds that EFSA did not follow its own procedures for its risk assessment. Moreover, the authors claim that the appraisal of the available studies was asymmetrically more alert to putative false positives than to possible false negatives. In this letter it is shown that the methodology for collection and selection of the scientific information used as a basis for the aspartame risk assessment, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied were defined a priori and documented in the published opinion. Furthermore, the Panel applied a Weight-of-Evidence approach combined with an analysis of the biological relevance of the appraised and validated evidence for its analysis, integration and interpretation, followed by an uncertainty analysis. Finally, an analysis of the distribution of negative versus positive outcome of the studies in the context of reliability showed that the claim of bias in the scientific risk assessment of aspartame is not substantiated.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13690-020-0395-4AspartameSweetenerRisk assessment |
| spellingShingle | George E. N. Kass Federica Lodi Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ Archives of Public Health Aspartame Sweetener Risk assessment |
| title | Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ |
| title_full | Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ |
| title_fullStr | Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ |
| title_full_unstemmed | Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ |
| title_short | Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’ |
| title_sort | letter to the editor regarding the article efsa s toxicological assessment of aspartame was it even handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives |
| topic | Aspartame Sweetener Risk assessment |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13690-020-0395-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT georgeenkass lettertotheeditorregardingthearticleefsastoxicologicalassessmentofaspartamewasitevenhandedlytryingtoidentifypossibleunreliablepositivesandunreliablenegatives AT federicalodi lettertotheeditorregardingthearticleefsastoxicologicalassessmentofaspartamewasitevenhandedlytryingtoidentifypossibleunreliablepositivesandunreliablenegatives |