Home Blog Page 133

Plant-Based Foods of Canada Welcomes Canada Food Guide Focus on Plant-based Proteins

0
Plant-Based Foods of Canada Welcomes Canada Food Guide Focus on Plant-based Proteins

Plant-Based Foods of Canada welcomed today’s Health Canada release of an updated Canada Food Guide, with an emphasis on consuming plant-based proteins more often.

“The changes we’re seeing in the updated Canada Food Guide reflect a broader societal trend towards greater consumption of plant-based foods that promises to continue in the years to come,” explains Beena Goldenberg, CEO, Hain Celestial Canada. “Public health research shows that the key to better eating is changing the food environment, which means not just educating people about what they should eat but also ensuring that great tasting plant-based goods are widely available, convenient and affordable. Plant-Based Foods of Canada is well positioned to work with government and key stakeholders to make that happen.”

The revised food guide includes a focus on eating patterns, including an emphasis on plant-based foods. This means vegetables, fruit, grains and protein foods should be consumed regularly; and among protein foods, CFG recommends consuming plant-based ones more often.

Plant-Based Foods of Canada notes that over the past few years, consumer notions of protein sources have expanded to include a wider variety of plant-based protein ingredients and foods. The increase in flexitarian eating, along with vegetarian and vegan lifestyles, and the health benefits associated with these trends, as well as concerns about sustainability are putting the spotlight on plant proteins. Earlier this year, the government of Canada announced an investment of approximately $150 million in the country’s plant protein industry through its $950 million Supercluster Initiative. Recent Nielsen data shows an 8% increase in sales of meat and dairy alternatives over the past year, to more than $3 billion. With this increased growth it’s clear that the plant-based foods industry is here to stay.

This industry growth has also resulted in greater consumer demand for innovation and variety at a scale only imagined a few years ago. Recent launches in alternative meats, frozen meals, non-dairy cheeses, spreads, desserts and beverages aim to create more options for consumers who want to choose plant-based foods.

Plant-Based Foods of Canada is comprised of food companies that make and market plant-based products that are part of a combination of proteins by a growing number of Canadians. Members of Plant-Based Foods of Canada include: Daiya Foods, Danone, Earth’s Own Foods, GreenSpace Brands, Hain Celestial, Conagra Brands, Ripple Foods, Tree  of Life Canada, Lightlife Foods, Sol Cuisine, The Field Roast Company and Beyond Meat Canada.

Plant-Based Foods of Canada is a division of Foods & Consumer Products of Canada (FCPC) the largest trade association representing food, beverage and consumer goods manufacturers in Canada, and operates under auspices of FCPC and its public policy and regulatory issues.

Plant Based World Conference & Expo Announces Launch of The Eat For The Future Business Forum

0
Plant Based World Conference & Expo Announces Launch of The Eat For The Future Business Forum

Plant Based World Conference & Expo (PBW), taking place June 7-8, 2019 at the Javits Convention Center in NYC, has announced details for the first wave of sessions and speakers for the Eat For The Future Business Forum, which will provide solutions for retailers, foodservice providers, brands and more. The Forum is being launched in partnership with Eat For The Planet, a media platform focused on showcasing ideas, technologies and people that are shaping the future of food.

“The pace of growth and innovation in the world of plant-based foods, as well as developments in cellular agriculture technologies, has been nothing short of astounding in recent years. And the best part is things are just getting started,” said Nil Zacharias, Founder of Eat For The Planet. “With a myriad of players exploring opportunities in the space, from startups to big food conglomerates, there has never been a greater need for a business conference dedicated to emerging sub-sectors of the food industry. That’s why I’m very excited to partner with PBW to launch the Eat For The Future Business Forum. This annual event aims to kick-start conversations and collaborations that will grow into game-changing solutions for our future food system.”

The Eat For The Future Business Forum will offer panels and discussions focused on the shifting food landscape as well as challenges and opportunities it presents for brands, retailers, foodservice providers.

Topics will include: Updates on CPG Trends in Retail Markets; How to Merchandise Plant-Based Products in Grocery Stores; How to Create Menus for Flexitarian Consumers; The Evolution of the Fast-Casual Dining Industry; Which Product Categories are Seeing the Most Success; How to Scale Up and Expand your Brand; and a whole lot more!

“We are fortunate to be working with Nil Zacharias and his team at Eat for the Planet to program two days of world-class education for retail and foodservice professionals as well as product developers,” said Ben Davis, Content & Communications Director, PBW. “As more and more consumers shift towards plant-based foods, the experts leading these sessions will share game changing solutions to help businesses across the food spectrum better understand the new consumer mindset.”

The speakers who have already been announced include:

Michele Simon, Executive Director, Plant Based Foods Association; Bruce Friedrich, Executive Director, The Good Food Institute; Euripides Pelekanos, CEO, Bareburger; Edward Brown, President, Restaurant Associates; Andrew Rigie, Executive Director, NYC Hospitality Alliance; Patrik Hellstrand, CEO, ByChloe; T.K. Pillan, Partner and Co-founder, PowerPlant Ventures, Miyoko Schinner, CEO and Founder, Miyoko’s Kitchen; Brad Barnes, Director of Consulting, Culinary Institute of America; Lisa Feria, CEO, StrayDog Capital; Annie Ryu, CEO and Founder, The Jackfruit Company; David Benzaquen, CEO and Co-founder, Ocean Hugger Foods; and Lou Cooperhouse, President & CEO, Blue Nalu.

Loblaw Announces Expanded Responsibilities for Company President, Sarah Davis

0
Loblaw Announces Expanded Responsibilities for Company President

BRAMPTON, ONJan. 15, 2019 /CNW/ – Today, Loblaw Companies Limited (TSX:L, “Loblaw”) announced that Sarah Daviswill assume expanded responsibilities in her role as President. In addition to day-to-day oversight of Loblaw’s business performance, she adds full responsibility for the company’s 13-member Management Board, and expands her direct-reporting lines with the addition of Finance and Human Resources. Davis continues to report to Galen G. Weston, who becomes Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Limited. Loblaw’s executive leadership is otherwise unchanged as a result of this announcement.

In her 12 years at Loblaw, Davis has served as Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and the executive lead of most business and operational functions. She has been President since January 2017.

“Sarah and I have worked closely for over a decade, and she has played an important role in many of Loblaw’s most defining moments: the formation of Choice Properties, the acquisition of Shoppers Drug Mart, the creation of PC Optimum, and a long-term strategy that demonstrates our passion for customers,” said Weston. “Together, our team has put the company on an exciting strategic path and Sarah is a great leader to take us forward.”

As Executive Chairman, Weston retains senior executive oversight of Loblaw’s long-term strategy, while applying greater attention to a broader transformation strategy at parent company George Weston Limited (TSX:WN) where he is Chairman and CEO.

Ontario announces cannabis lottery winners

0
Ontario announces cannabis lottery winners

25 sole proprietors and companies  of the cannabis lottery will proceed with applications for licenced cannabis stores, which the province aims to have open by April 1

As set out in Ontario Regulation 468/18, the Government of Ontario gave the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) the mandate to hold a cannabis lottery to determine who may apply for Retail Operator Licences. The cannabis lottery selection was completed on January 11, 2019.

Ontario has announced the results of its much-anticipated cannabis retail lottery, naming 25 companies that are now eligible to begin applying for a licence to operate a brick-and-mortar pot shop in the province. However, there were no well-known businesses in the list.

Among the companies randomly selected by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) were Pure Alpha Holdings, Tripsetter Inc., CGS Foods Inc., and The Niagara Herbalist.

The lottery winners will have until Jan. 18 to submit a Retail Operator Licence Application with extensive detail on the timeline for getting a cannabis store up and running. They would then be subject to a background check, which will include scrutiny of tax records and financial statements. Additionally, the 25 winners will have to submit a $50,000 letter of credit and a non-refundable $6,000 fee payment to the AGCO.

If applicants don’t pass the AGCO background check, after they apply for the Retail Operator Licence, the AGCO will turn to a waitlist of applicants.

The AGCO received 17,000 applications. Nearly 64% of the license came from sole proprietorships, and registered companies constituted only 33%. Pure Alpha Holdings, Tripsetter, CGS Foods, and the Niagara Herbalist were some of the corporations that were selected. The winners of the lottery will now have to pay $6,000 for the retail operator license and also submit a $50,000 letter of credit that is valid until December 13, 2019, within five days of the announcement of lottery results.

The licences are being divided regionally, with five going to the east of the province, seven in the west, two in the north, six in the Greater Toronto Area and five in Toronto itself.

 

Lottery Winners:

East Region:

Daniel Telio 428720
Brandon long 427764
Patterson and Lavoie 413159
PURE ALPHA HOLDINGS 414955
Karan Someshwar 419068

 

GTA

Guruveer Singh Sangha 421776
David Nguyen 423565
Tripsetter Inc. 427833
Alexander Altman 414725
CGS FOODS INC 407223
Gary Hatt 416473

 

Toronto

Heather Conlon 398788
SEYEDARASH SEYEDAMERI 425239
Colin Campbell 399836
Dana Michele Kendal 408389
Hunny Gawri 423754

 

West Region

Steven Fry 408185
Lisa A Bigioni 412975
Ranjit basra 428461
2674253 Ontario Inc. 405886
Santino J Coppolino 411369
Christopher Comrie 425836
The Niagara Herbalist 399235

 

 

 

 

The Green Organic Dutchman Signs Sublicense to Dry Cannabis in Canada

0
The Green Organic Dutchman Signs Sublicense to Dry Cannabis in Canada

The Green Organic Dutchman Holdings Ltd. is pleased to announce it has signed a royalty-bearing commercial sublicense with EnWave Corporation and Tilray, Inc.

EnWave has developed Radiant Energy Vacuum – an innovative, proprietary method for the precise dehydration of organic materials. EnWave has further developed patent-pending methods for uniformly drying and decontaminating cannabis through the use of REV™ technology, shortening the time from harvest to marketable cannabis products.

EnWave and Tilray entered into an exclusive partnership in October 2017 in which EnWave named Tilray as its licensed partner (the “License”). The License grants Tilray an exclusive right to use and sub-license EnWave’s proprietary REV™ dehydration technology in Canada. Under the terms of the License, EnWave and Tilray will share royalties from TGOD’s use of EnWave’s REV™ technology on an undisclosed basis.

The Agreement grants TGOD the right to use EnWave’s proprietary Radiant Energy Vacuum (“REV™”) dehydration technology to dry organic cannabis in its Canadian operations. Pursuant to the Agreement, TGOD has signed an equipment purchase agreement and submitted a purchase order to EnWave for a large-scale 60kW commercial REV™ machine to initiate commercial production.

“We are incredibly excited to utilize this proprietary and advanced dehydration technology, which will promote consistency in the manufacturing of our premium organic products, improve space efficiency by reducing the need for drying rooms and quicken TGOD’s time from harvest to sale,” stated Brian Athaide, TGOD’s Chief Executive Officer.

About The Green Organic Dutchman Holdings Ltd.

The Green Organic Dutchman Holdings Ltd. is a publicly traded, premium global organic cannabis company, with operations focused on medical cannabis markets in CanadaEurope, the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as the Canadian adult-use market. The Company grows high quality, organic cannabis with sustainable, all-natural principles. TGOD’s products are laboratory tested to ensure patients have access to a standardized, safe and consistent product. TGOD has a funded capacity of 170,000 kgs and is building 1,382,000 sq. ft. of cultivation facilities across OntarioQuebec and Jamaica.

For more information on The Green Organic Dutchman Holdings Ltd., please visit www.tgod.ca.

Sears Likely to Liquidate, Reports Say

0
Sears Likely to Liquidate

According to reports, Sears officially plans to liquidate. After several failed attempts to stay afloat, the Hoffman Estates-based company is the latest victim of American’s changing shopping habits.

Sears Holdings’ independent directors have rejected a $4.4 billion bailout bid from chairman and former CEO Edward Lampert, meaning the retail icon has likely reached the end of its 126-year road, according to reports from CNBC and Reuters.

A few weeks ago, Sears Chairman Eddie Lampert submitted a last-minute, $4.4 billion bid in an effort to buy the retailer and keep it alive. But according to published reports, the bid fell short and did not meet broader creditor approval.

On Tuesday, the retailer’s parent company, Sears Holding Corp, asked a federal bankruptcy judge in New York to move to its last option: liquidation.

Sears and Kmart currently are poised to become the latest victims of nation’s changing shopping habits, pending any more last-minute saves.

The retail giant filed for bankruptcy protection last October. An auction for the company’s assets is not due until next week.

The department giant originally began as a jewellery company. In 1886, Richard W. Sears purchased unwanted watches from a Minneapolis jewellery and sold them to co-workers. He eventually partnered with watchmaker Alvah C. Roebuck to form jewellery and watch company that would target underserved rural areas via a mail-order catalogue. The retailer eventually expanded to a brick-and-mortar retailer that stocked a wide variety of items, leading some to dub it “the original everything store.”

 

 

 

 

 

SC Johnson Expands Ingredient Transparency to Latin America

0
SC Johnson Expands Ingredient Transparency to Latin America

Industry-Leading Disclosure Program Reaches Consumers Around the World and Has Inspired Companies Globally

SC Johnson is fulfilling a worldwide commitment made nearly 10 years ago by expanding its industry-leading global ingredient transparency program to Latin America and delivering transparency to consumers everywhere around the world who use its products.

SC Johnson has led the industry toward greater transparency and continues to disclose beyond industry standards. The company has also led the charge with governmental bodies for positive reform of chemical management and disclosure. When the company first announced its ingredient transparency plan, regulations requiring ingredient disclosure did not exist.

“Ten years ago, SC Johnson made a commitment to global ingredient transparency. Today, by expanding our program to Latin America, we have fulfilled that commitment,” said Fisk Johnson, Chairman and CEO of SC Johnson. “By keeping our promise, we have brought ingredient transparency around the world, and in the process, we have helped motivate the industry toward greater transparency.”

For example, SC Johnson began disclosing product-specific fragrance ingredients in 2015. Two years later, in 2017, Procter and Gamble, Unilever and Reckitt Benckiser announced plans to increase their own products’ fragrance disclosure.

SC Johnson’s pioneering approach began in earnest in 2009, with ingredient disclosure programs launched in the U.S. and Canada. In 2016, the company’s European ingredient transparency program was unveiled at WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com. One year later, the Asia Pacific market was added to SC Johnson’s global ingredient transparency program. Latin America is the final piece of the puzzle.

“While some companies have been slow to incorporate ingredient transparency with their products, SC Johnson has always led from the front,” said Ken Cook, President of Environmental Working Group. “I applaud Fisk Johnson for his steadfast commitment to consumers as a global leader in ingredient transparency.”

SC Johnson’s leadership in ingredient transparency has paved the way for others in the industry to follow its lead. In 2015, SmartLabel® was unveiled as a digital tool to access a greater range of product ingredients, five years after SC Johnson began disclosing ingredients. SC Johnson has also led the way in advocating for product transparency at the federal and state levels, including strong support for strengthening the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act and advocating for California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, which was signed into law in 2017 and made California the first state to require ingredient disclosure on product labels and online for cleaning products. SC Johnson has set a bold example in ingredient transparency that has led to meaningful change.

“The demands for transparency are not going to decrease and there are a lot of enabling technologies like blockchain that will make traceability and transparency much easier for everybody and more affordable,” said Joel Makower, Chairman and Executive Editor of GreenBiz Group. “So as those increase and become more available, I think that will also lead to more demands for transparency.”

Leadership in Transparency

The disclosure of product ingredients is just one of many transparency initiatives SC Johnson has pursued. Over the last decade, the company:

  • Was the first company to share a comprehensive list of fragrance ingredients used in its products in 2012. The SC Johnson Exclusive Fragrance Palette excludes about 2,400 ingredients that don’t meet the company’s high standards even though they meet industry standards and are legal in commerce.
  • Led the industry when it added website product-specific fragrance disclosure in 2015.
  • Began disclosing in 2017, on a product-specific basis, the presence of 368 potential skin allergens that may occur in its products. This goes beyond regulations and far beyond what most companies share.
  • Was the first in its industry to make the rigorous science behind its ingredient selection program clear and available to the public in 2018. The peer-reviewed Greenlist™ program assesses the human health and environmental impacts of more than 3,500 ingredients used in its global product portfolio and considers both the hazard and risk associated with the use of these ingredients in its products.
  • Became in 2018 the first major consumer packaged goods (CPG) company to globally disclose fragrance ingredients down to .01 percent of the product formula across its portfolio of brands.

Consumers today expect more from companies, including information about the ingredients in the products they use. According to a recent global public opinion study, 74 per cent of consumers worldwide expect companies to provide product transparency on their products and services.[i]

“I’m immensely proud of the dedication and work by the people of SC Johnson to deliver global ingredient transparency,” Johnson said. “Through these efforts, SC Johnson continues to work hard to earn the goodwill of consumers. As a family company, we’re committed to honouring those values and maintaining that trust.”

“Over recent years, we have seen a lot of shifting in the area of ingredient transparency,” said Mary Mazzoni, Senior Editor of 3BL Media and TriplePundit. “For example, consumers now care about the ingredients in the products they buy, how those ingredients will affect their personal human health and, increasingly, the health of the environment.”

Making Information Available to Global Consumers

SC Johnson’s global ingredient transparency program now provides information for more than 8,700 products used in nearly every country in the world in 35 languages. By meeting this important commitment, SC Johnson is now able to offer unparalleled access to nearly 6 billion consumers, providing a comprehensive list of product ingredients for the company’s many iconic brands.

For anyone wanting to know what’s in an SC Johnson product and why, all the details are available at WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com – written in clear and straightforward terms including the purpose of each ingredient. This simple, easy-to-navigate, mobile-friendly platform enables consumers to pull up a product they are considering, see the ingredients listed in a clear and understandable format, and ultimately make the choice that is right for their families.

With its unique global reach, SC Johnson is once again raising the bar for the industry while giving more consumers around the world the tools and information they need to make informed choices. SC Johnson encourages other companies to join in disclosing their own ingredients to consumers around the world.

Fragrance Transparency Leadership

Currently, the fragrance industry uses 3,700 fragrance ingredients approved by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA). In 2012, SC Johnson took the review of fragrance ingredients a step further with the creation of its Exclusive Fragrance Palette that narrowed the acceptable fragrance ingredients from 3,700 to approximately 1,300 used in SC Johnson products.

In 2015, SC Johnson was the first U.S. CPG company, working with its core fragrance suppliers, to offer product-specific fragrance ingredient disclosure. This drove a sea change across the fragrance industry that is leading to greater fragrance ingredient transparency down to the component level.

SC Johnson in 2018 became the first major CPG company to globally disclose fragrance ingredients down to .01 per cent of the product formula across its portfolio of brands. This action continues the company’s decade-long journey to transform industry efforts when it comes to ingredient transparency.

Allergens Transparency

In 2017, SC Johnson fulfilled a commitment it made to disclose the presence of 368 potential skin allergens by-product on its ingredient website. This level of transparency goes well above and beyond current regulatory and industry standards. Other companies use similar ingredients but only disclose per the EU 26 regulatory requirements, which only requires companies to list 26 potential skin allergens. SC Johnson takes care to use ingredients with potential skin allergens only in amounts so low that it would be highly unlikely to create a new skin allergy or trigger a skin allergy reaction.

To determine its comprehensive list of potential skin allergens, SC Johnson scientists analyzed more than 3,000 data sets from public and industry sources for potential skin allergens identified on country regulatory lists, fragrance industry lists, the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reviews, dermatology clinic data and individual supplier safety data sheets. The company then shared its findings for validation with experts in the fields of dermatology, immuno-toxicology, fragrance toxicology and allergens.

Greenlist™ Criteria Program

Building upon the company’s transparency commitment to tell the whole story about the ingredients it uses and the rigorous science that informs those choices, SC Johnson in 2017 began sharing publicly the scientific criteria behind the company’s Greenlist™ ingredient selection program. The Greenlist™ program helps the company continually improve its products by choosing ingredients to better protect human health and the environment. People can now see, in detail, the care that goes into choosing each of the ingredients that are used in SC Johnson products.

SC Johnson’s Greenlist™ program has guided the company’s product development for nearly two decades. Every ingredient in every SC Johnson product goes through the rigorous Greenlist™ program, which is centered around a peer-reviewed, four-step evaluation of its potential impact on human health and the environment. The Greenlist™ program looks at both hazard and risk to select the ingredients the company uses, and at what concentration, if at all. It’s grounded in best-in-class data collection and driven by the company’s commitment to continually improve its products.

As part of the Greenlist™ program, SC Johnson maintains a list of ingredients that are not allowed in its products. This list is termed the “Not Allowable” list. It includes over 200 unique raw materials in roughly 90 material categories and over 2,400 fragrance materials. These materials all meet legal and regulatory requirements — and are often used by other companies in the industry – but simply do not meet SC Johnson standards. You can find more information about SC Johnson’s Greenlist™ program in its 26th annual Sustainability Report, The Science Inside.

Industry Leadership

Calling for reform of chemical management rules at the federal level, SC Johnson was an early supporter of bipartisan efforts to update and modernize the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to achieve a credible, risk- and science-based federal program for managing chemicals in commerce that inspire confidence in the safety of chemicals used in consumer products. SC Johnson was one of the first CPG companies to publicly testify in support of strengthening the tools available to screen all chemicals in commerce, evaluate the risks of high-priority substances and regulate certain conditions of use where necessary. In 2016, following the signing into law of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, SC Johnson was singled out for leadership in championing this reform by then-U.S. President Barack Obama.

SC Johnson also supported the development and legislative approval of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 by the California Assembly and partnered with NGOs, industry groups and local legislators to advance the disclosure legislation. This legislation created an industry-wide ingredient communication program for manufacturers of consumer and institutional air care, automotive, general cleaning, polish and floor maintenance products – enhancing ingredient transparency for consumers by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels with enhanced disclosure on manufacturer websites.

Also in 2017, SC Johnson added SmartLabel® for many of its popular U.S. brands. The SmartLabel® program offers consumers easy and instantaneous access to detailed information about products — just like on the WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com website — so they can make informed decisions about the products they bring into their homes. By providing consumers with additional places to find information about its products, SC Johnson is continuing to build consumer trust.

Transparency – What’s Next

With its ingredient disclosure commitment met, SC Johnson, is not stopping. Transparency will continue to be a priority as the company continually strives to be the most trusted company in its industry through greater transparency.

“We aren’t done with transparency by a longshot,” Johnson said. “Transparency is ingrained in our values and helps us remain focused on how we operate as a global company to earn the trust of consumers around the world.”

—cnw

Leica Biosystems Receives US Patent for RTF Extreme Speed Scanning Technology

0
Leica Biosystems Receives US Patent for RTF Extreme Speed Scanning Technology

Leica Biosystems, the global leader in pathology workflow solutions announced today that the US Patent Office has granted it a patent for RTF, its breakthrough “Real-Time Focusing” technology (US patent 9,841,590). This will enable high volume, extremely fast line scanning of anatomic pathology slides.

“RTF technology dramatically improves slides scanning speed while delivering excellent optical focus. Extremely short scan times can now be achieved at 40x magnification,” said Jerome Clavel, General Manager of Leica Biosystems Pathology Imaging. “We have been working internally with RTF technology for quite some time. We will be integrating and commercializing RTF into our next-generation digital pathology platform shortly.”

Leica Biosystems has been testing RTF with UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), and other leading institutions worldwide to fine-tune its application in a high-volume laboratory setting.

“We are excited about the potential of RTF to significantly scale up digital pathology operations by moving high volume and high throughput scanning into the histology lab,” said Dr. W. Dean Wallace, Professor, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “By implementing RTF technology into our workflow, we will soon be able to take the next crucial step in the development of digital pathology.”

Leica Biosystems has a large global R&D footprint with 12 development centres. Its dedicated teams of engineers develop innovative technologies with the goal of enabling pathologists to efficiently make highly confident same-day diagnoses. Aperio Technologies, now part of Leica Biosystems, introduced high-speed line scanning into Digital Pathology years ago and holds a comprehensive patent portfolio for this technology in key geographies.

The statements in this press release are forward-looking and any references to projected timelines, anticipated functionality or potential claims are only speculative at this state.

Aperio digital pathology products using RTF have not been cleared for clinical diagnostic use in the U.S.A.

Food allergies reported by a ‘high’ rate of U.S. adults, study shows

0
Food allergies reported by a 'high' rate of U.S. adults

To find out how many adults in the U.S. are allergic to at least one food, Dr. Ruchi Gupta, a professor of pediatrics at Lurie Children’s Hospital Chicago, and her team combined nationally representative surveys from more than 40,000 adults.

Shellfish, milk and peanuts cause the most common problems.

The results? Nearly 11 per cent or more than 26 million adults, when the results are projected onto the entire U.S. population, reported the kinds of severe symptoms that are consistent with a food allergy, the team reported in JAMA Network Open.

The Study:

Food allergy is a costly,1 potentially life-threatening2 health condition that can adversely affect patients’ well-being.3,4 Although population-based studies5,6 have examined the prevalence of food allergy among children, less is known about the population-level burden of food allergy among adults in the United States. The few population-based studies7,8 to date that examined adult food allergy have focused on a limited number of specific allergens (eg, peanut) or allergen groups (eg, tree nut, seafood) or have been secondary analyses of federal health surveys, which were not designed to comprehensively characterize food allergy prevalence and severity among US adults. For example, neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey9 nor the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Food Safety Survey10 collects information about specific allergic reaction symptoms critical for differential diagnosis of food allergy (eg, food intolerances, oral allergy syndrome). Nevertheless, food allergy prevalence estimates from these recent national surveys exceed 9% of US adults, suggesting that food allergy may affect more US adults than previously acknowledged.

Although some children with food allergy develop natural tolerance, others retain their food allergy as they enter adulthood.11,12 Adults can also develop new food allergies,13 and evidence suggests that certain food allergies (eg, shellfish and fin fish) may be more likely than others to develop during adulthood.8,13 Moreover, studies1416 suggest that rates of food allergy–related emergency department (ED) visits may be increasing among children and young adults.

Much remains to be learned about the population-level consequences of adult food allergy in the United States, including the relative frequency and timing of adult- vs childhood-onset food allergy, allergen type, severity, and key sociodemographic and clinical factors of each of these food allergy characteristics. This study aimed to provide comprehensive, nationally representative estimates of the distribution, severity, and factors associated with adult food allergy in the United States.

Methods

Surveys were administered by NORC at the University of Chicago from October 9, 2015, to September 18, 2016, to a sample of US households through a dual-sampling approach using NORC’s nationally representative AmeriSpeak panel and the Survey Sampling International (SSI) non–probability-based sample (eMethods in the Supplement). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants during enrollment into the AmeriSpeak panel and SSI web samples. Identical surveys were administered to both samples. All data were deidentified. The NORC Institutional Review Board and Northwestern University Institutional Review Board approved all study activities. The study followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reporting guideline.

Survey Development and Design

The surveys extended our national child food allergy survey, administered in 2009 to 2010, which was developed by pediatricians, allergists, health services researchers, and survey methodologists. Expert panel review and key informant cognitive interviews (N = 40) were conducted on the original survey using the approach described previously.17 Although core constructs from the 2009-2010 survey were retained, additional questions were added to the present instrument to assess emerging research issues related to the cause and management of adult food allergy. The revised instrument was pretested on 345 interviewees to ensure clarity, relevance, validity, and reliable functioning of all questions and response options. Interviewee data and feedback were reviewed and incorporated into the final 2015-2016 surveys, which were administered via the internet or telephone. All write-in responses were hand-coded and reviewed by an expert panel to ensure the accuracy of the final data. Participants who did not answer the initial question about whether they have ever had a food allergy were considered to have provided incomplete responses and were not included in any analyses.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measures for the study were the prevalence and severity of overall and food-specific convincing adult food allergy. Food allergies were considered to be convincing if the most severe reaction reported to that food included at least 1 symptom on the stringent symptom list developed by our expert panel. Reported allergies with reaction symptoms characteristic of oral allergy syndrome or food intolerances were excluded and not considered to be convincing according to the food allergy categorization flowchart summarized in Figure 1, even if such allergies were reported as diagnosed by a physician. Only convincing food allergies for which a physician’s diagnosis was reported were considered to be physician diagnosed for the purposes of our study. For each convincing allergy, a severe reaction history was indicated by reporting 1 or more stringent symptoms across 2 or more of the following organ systems: skin or oral mucosa, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular, and respiratory tract.

If multiple food allergies were reported, each reported food allergy was evaluated separately using the food allergy categorization flowchart. For example, if a respondent reported a nut allergy with a reaction history limited to oral symptoms indicative of oral allergy syndrome as well as a shellfish allergy with a reaction history that included throat tightening, vomiting, and hives, the respondent would be considered to have only a single, severe shellfish allergy and the nut allergy would be excluded. Lifetime physician-diagnosed atopic comorbidities were also assessed using the question, “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor with any of the following chronic conditions? Please select all that apply.” Response options included asthma, eczema/atopic dermatitis, hay fever/allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergies, insect sting allergy, latex allergy, medication allergy, and urticaria/chronic hives.

Study Participants and Survey Weighting

Eligible study participants included adults (≥18 years of age) able to complete surveys in English or Spanish who were residing in a US household. As in the 2009-2010 survey, this study relied on a nationally representative household panel to support the population-level inference.5 Study participants were first recruited from NORC at the University of Chicago’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, where a survey completion rate of 51.2% was observed (7218 responses from 14 095 invitees). The weighted cumulative AAPOR response rate for the AmeriSpeak sample was 8.8%. This rate is a function of the 18.3% rate of originally sampled households successfully recruited into the AmeriSpeak panel when it was established, the 93.8% rate of successfully recruited households who were also successfully retained into the panel so that they were potentially eligible for participation in the present study, and the aforementioned 51.2% completion rate among successfully recruited and retained AmeriSpeak panelists who were approached for this particular study. Each AmeriSpeak respondent was assigned a base, nonresponse-adjusted sampling weight, which was then ranked to external population totals associated with age, sex, educational level, race/ethnicity, housing tenure, telephone status, and census division using iterative proportional fitting to improve external validity. To increase the precision of estimates when data were scarce, such as for the prevalence of rare allergies within specific age groups, and ensure sufficient sample size among key subpopulations, prevalence estimates calculated from population-weighted AmeriSpeak responses were augmented by calibration-weighted, non–probability-based responses obtained through the SSI Dynamix platform.18 SSI is a leading survey research organization with a diverse and large web-based panel of potential participants, who were sampled for the present study using methods designed to minimize self-selection bias. State-of-the-art small-area estimation methods were used, which leverage similarity and borrow strength across all available information in both samples to minimize the bias and variance of resulting estimates to a greater degree than independent analysis of either sample permitted.19 These methods are frequently used by census bureaus and national survey research organizations because of their efficiency and effectiveness.20,21 The final, combined sample weight was derived by applying an optimal composition factor that minimizes the mean square error associated with food allergy prevalence estimates. In total, surveys were completed by 40 443 US adults, each of whom received $5 on survey completion.

Statistical Analysis

Complex survey weighted proportions and 95% CIs were calculated to estimate prevalence using the svy: tabulate command using the “ci” and “per” options in Stata statistical software, version 14 (StataCorp).22Relative proportions of demographic characteristics were compared using weighted Pearson χ2 statistics, which were corrected for the complex survey design with the second-order correction of Rao and Scott23and converted into F statistics. Covariate-adjusted complex survey-weighted logistic regression models compared the relative prevalence and other assessed food allergy outcomes by participant characteristics. Two-sided hypothesis tests were used, with 2-sided P < .05 considered to be statistically significant.

Results
Demographics, Food Allergy Prevalence, and Childhood vs Adult-Onset Allergies

Surveys were completed by 40 443 adults (7210 from the AmeriSpeak panel and 33 233 from the SSI panel; mean [SD] age, 46.6 [20.2] years). As anticipated, the observed completion rate was higher among the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel (51.2% of invited adults) compared with the non–probability-based SSI panel (5.5% of invited adults). The weighted distributions of respondents by age, sex, and race/ethnicity (eTable 1 in the Supplement) were consistent with 2016 estimates from the US Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.24

Overall, 10.8% (95% CI, 10.4%-11.1%) of US adults were estimated to have 1 or more current convincing food allergies. However, an estimated 19.0% (95% CI, 18.5%-19.5%) of US adults reported at least 1 convincing or nonconvincing FA. (Table 1). Among all adults with convincing food allergy, 48.0% (95% CI, 46.2%-49.7%) reported developing at least 1 of their convincing food allergies as an adult, whereas 26.9% (95% CI, 25.3%-28.6%) developed convincing food allergy only during adulthood and 52.0% (95% CI, 50.3%-53.8%) developed convincing food allergy only before 18 years of age.

The 5 most common convincing food allergies reported among adults were shellfish (2.9%; 95% CI, 2.7%-3.1%), peanut (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.7%-1.9%), milk (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.1%), tree nut (1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.3%), and finfish (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.0%) (Table 2). Multiple convincing food allergies were reported by 45.3% (95% CI, 43.6%-47.1%) of convincingly food-allergic adults (Table 3). Roughly half of adults with convincing food allergies reported having a physician-diagnosed convincing food allergy (47.5%; 95% CI, 45.8%-49.3%). Individuals with peanut allergy reported the highest rate of physician diagnosis (72.5% [95% CI, 68.9%-75.8%] of convincing peanut allergies).

Food Allergy Severity and Health Care Use

Among adults with 1 or more convincing food allergies, 51.1% (95% CI, 49.3%-52.9%) reported experiencing at least 1 severe food-allergic reaction (Table 3). A history of severe reactions was most commonly observed among participants with convincing peanut (67.8%; 95% CI, 64.2%-71.1%) and tree nut (61.3%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.8%) allergies. Among adults with 1 or more convincing food allergies, 24.0% (95% CI, 22.6%-25.4%) reported a current epinephrine prescription and 38.3% (95% CI, 36.7%-40.0%) reported 1 or more lifetime food allergy–related ED visits. A total of 8.6% (95% CI, 7.7%-9.6%) of convincingly food-allergic adults reported 1 or more food allergy–related ED visit within the past year.

Factors Associated With Food Allergies and Related Conditions

Adjusted associations from multiple logistic regression models estimating odds of convincing food allergy and food allergy characteristics are presented in eTable 2 in the Supplement. Significant differences in convincing food allergy prevalence were observed by race/ethnicity, with higher rates among groups other than white compared with white adults. Rates of convincing food allergy were higher among females (13.8%; 95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) compared with males (7.5%; 95% CI, 7.0%-7.9%). Compared with younger adults, individuals aged 30 to 39 years had elevated rates of convincing food allergy (12.7%; 95% CI, 11.8%-13.7%), whereas rates were lower for those 60 years or older (8.8%; 95% CI, 8.2%-9.4%). In adjusted models, each assessed chronic atopic comorbidity, including asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis, urticaria, and latex allergy, was significantly associated with increased odds of convincing food allergy (Figure 2).

Adults were more likely to have a physician-diagnosed convincing food allergy if they earned $25 000 or more annually compared with those earning less than $25 000. Having multiple convincing food allergies, a current epinephrine prescription, a history of 1 or more lifetime food allergy–related ED visits, a severe reaction history, comorbid allergic rhinitis, or latex allergies were each associated with increased odds of having 1 or more physician-diagnosed convincing food allergy. When examining factors related to a severe food allergy reaction history, convincingly food-allergic adults older than 50 years had significantly decreased risk of severe food allergy compared with younger adults, whereas black adults (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and adults with comorbid asthma (OR, 1.4; 95% CI,1.1-1.6) or allergic rhinitis (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5) were at increased risk for severe food allergy.

Factors Associated With Epinephrine Prescription and ED Visits

eTable 3 in the Supplement reports factors associated with having a current epinephrine prescription, reporting 1 or more lifetime food allergy–related ED visits, and reporting 1 or more food allergy–related ED visits within the past year. Adults reporting 1 or more lifetime ED visits (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.6-3.9) or severe food allergy (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8) had elevated odds of having a current epinephrine prescription, as did adults with peanut (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1), tree nut (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.0-5.3), sesame (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2), or soy allergy (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1) or a comorbid insect sting allergy (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9). Adults 50 years or older also had significantly reduced odds of a current epinephrine prescription. Current epinephrine prescription rates varied considerably by food allergy type, with the highest rates observed among adults with sesame (61.6%), peanut (53.8%), or tree nut allergy (51.5%). With respect to lifetime ED visits, adults with multiple food allergies (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), severe food allergy (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.3), childhood-onset food allergy only (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0), a current epinephrine prescription (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.6-3.9), or comorbid asthma (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5) had significantly elevated odds of 1 or more food allergy–related ED visits, as did Hispanics and adults earning less than $25 000 per year.

Discussion

The present population-weighted data revealed that an estimated 10.8% of US adults had at least 1 current food allergy during the study period (corresponding to >26 million US adults), whereas 19.0% of adults believed that they were food allergic. These data suggest that there are currently at least 13 million food-allergic adults who have experienced at least 1 severe food-allergic reaction, at least 10 million adults who have received food allergy treatment in the ED, and at least 12 million adults with adult-onset food allergy.

This overall estimate of adult food allergy prevalence falls between the 10% estimated from 2007-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data by McGowan and Keet9 and estimates reported by Verrill et al10 from 2010 FDA Food Safety Survey data, who reported an overall adult food allergy prevalence of 13% and physician-diagnosed food allergy prevalence of 6.5%. However, neither of these previous surveys collected data on reaction symptoms that could be used to identify adults reporting food allergies that are unlikely to be IgE mediated. Given that the most prevalent allergies observed were shellfish and peanut, which prior pediatric work suggests are infrequently outgrown,25 this finding suggests that the population-level burden of food allergy is likely to increase in the future, absent widespread implementation of effective prevention efforts and/or therapies. Of interest, the current data suggest that shellfish allergy may be a particularly enduring allergy among adults. For example, estimated shellfish allergy prevalence was 2.8% among individuals aged 18 to 29 years and 2.6% among those 60 years or older, a lower rate of decrease across the lifespan than observed for other food allergies. These relatively high rates of shellfish allergy across the lifespan, including adult-onset shellfish allergies, require further investigation. Whether these high rates are attributable to different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms among shellfish-allergic patients, greater awareness of shellfish allergy, and/or additional factors remains to be seen and is the subject of ongoing research. Shellfish has long been acknowledged as a persistent allergy,8,26,27 although adult cohort studies are needed to more definitively establish its natural history.

Among US adults, our data revealed that the burden of shellfish allergy was greatest, affecting an estimated 7.2 million US adults. Milk (affecting an estimated 4.7 million adults), peanut (4.5 million), tree nut (3.0 million), finfish (2.2 million), egg (2.0 million), wheat (2.0 million), soy (1.5 million), and sesame (0.5 million) were the next most common food allergies.

As summarized in a recent review,28 racial/ethnic disparities in allergic diseases, such as asthma29 and eczema,30 are well established, and data suggest that the burden of child food allergy may also be greater among the population of races/ethnicities other than white, non-Hispanic.17 However, much less is known about such disparities in adult food allergy. The current data showed that food allergy rates were significantly higher among adults other than white, even after adjustment for income, educational level, numerous physician-diagnosed atopic conditions, and other covariates. These findings are consistent with findings from our previous population-based study8,17 of child food allergy prevalence, which also found elevated rates of food allergy in non-Hispanic black and Asian children. Although previous examinations of food allergy disparities have largely contrasted sensitization and estimated prevalence rates between non-Hispanic black and white populations,31,32 the present findings suggest that the scope of future work examining food allergy disparities should be expanded to further investigate racial/ethnic differences among Hispanic adults. In the current study, Hispanic adults were estimated to have comparable rates of food allergy to non-Hispanic black adults, as well as the highest rates of food allergy–related ED visits among all racial groups, despite reporting epinephrine prescription rates comparable to those of white adults.

Clinical food allergy management guidelines recommend intramuscular epinephrine as first-line treatment for food-induced anaphylaxis.33 All patients diagnosed with a food allergy should be prescribed epinephrine because of the inability to accurately and reliably estimate the severity of future allergic reactions.34,35 Our data suggest that approximately one-quarter of adults with food allergy possess a current epinephrine prescription, with higher rates among adults reporting a history of severe reactions and lifetime food allergy–related ED visits. These overall rates of epinephrine prescription are comparable to the 23% of peanut- and tree nut–allergic adults reporting an epinephrine prescription in a 2002 prevalence study.36 However, further analyses suggest that a substantial proportion of adults with food allergy who may be at elevated risk of anaphylaxis do not report having a current epinephrine prescription. For instance, among adults with 1 or more severe, physician-diagnosed food allergies who reported at least 1 food allergy–related ED visit in the past year, only 65% reported a current epinephrine prescription. These low rates of epinephrine possession are particularly notable given that nearly 40% of food-allergic adults reported at least 1-lifetime food allergy–related ED visit and more than half reported a history of 1 or more severe food-allergic reactions.

The high rate of severe reactions in our study compared with the previous literature17 is consistent with findings from multiple studies3739 showing an association of increased age with more severe allergic reaction symptoms. However, it is also possible that the higher proportion of adults reporting severe reactions is a function of adults’ greater cumulative lifetime risk. This idea is supported by the slightly reduced rates of severe reactions and ED visits observed among adults reporting adult-onset food allergy in the present study. More specifically, the significantly elevated odds of severe food allergy observed among adults with comorbid allergic rhinitis extends findings from a large case series where a marked increase in food-induced severe pharyngeal edema was observed among peanut- and tree nut–allergic patients with comorbid allergic rhinitis.40 Although less than 10% of food-allergic adults reported a food allergy–related ED visit within the past year, this figure increased to 32% among sesame-allergic adults, who also reported the highest epinephrine possession rates in the cohort (62% vs 24% overall). Patients with comorbid asthma were also at increased risk of food allergy–related ED visits, which is consistent with previous work that found an association of asthma with increased anaphylaxis risk.41

Adult-onset food allergies are an important emerging health problem. A recent analysis13 of electronic health record data collected from a network of Chicago-area clinics concluded that although shellfish, tree nut, and finfish allergies were the most common adult-onset food allergies, it appears to be possible to develop adult-onset food allergies to all major food allergen groups. In the current study, adult-onset allergies were observed to every assessed food. After wheat, the most common adult-onset allergies in our sample were shellfish, soy, tree nut, and finfish, which were the top 4 allergies identified by Kamdar et al.13 Furthermore, the observed rates of adult-onset shellfish and finfish allergy in our sample are not dissimilar to the rates of 60% and 40%, respectively, observed by Sicherer et al8 more than a decade ago. The most common childhood-onset allergy was peanut, which underlines the importance of early-life primary prevention efforts, such as the targeted early introduction practices advocated by the recent Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States.42

In light of the considerable economic1 and quality of life3 consequences associated with allergen avoidance and other food allergy management behaviours, individuals with a suspected food allergy should receive appropriate confirmatory testing and counselling to counter unnecessary avoidance of allergenic food. Greater patient education efforts regarding the key differences between food intolerances and allergies also may be warranted.43 Furthermore, the results of our study suggest that adults need to be encouraged to see their physicians to receive a proper diagnosis, epinephrine prescription, and counselling for their food allergy. Given the increasing evidence for the preventive benefits of early allergen exposure during infancy and potential treatment options, adults should be made aware of these new practices to potentially prevent food allergies in their children or consider treatments in the near future.

Limitations

Although double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges remain the criterion standard for food allergy diagnosis, such methods were not used to confirm self-reported food allergy in the present study because of their expense and impracticality with such a large nationally representative sample and concerns about nonparticipation bias. However, similar to past work,7 to strengthen the rigour of our self-report questionnaire, stringent criteria were established in collaboration with an expert panel to exclude food allergies for which corresponding symptom report was not consistent with an IgE-mediated food allergy. Nevertheless, given the self-report paradigm used in the present study, bias remains a concern.

Conclusions

These data suggest that at least 1 in 10 US adults are food allergic. However, they also suggest that nearly 1 in 5 adults believe themselves to be food allergic, whereas only 1 in 20 are estimated to have a physician-diagnosed food allergy. Overall, approximately half of all food-allergic adults developed at least 1 adult-onset allergy, suggesting that adult-onset allergy is common in the United States among adults of all ages, to a wide variety of allergens, and among adults with and without additional, childhood-onset allergies.

 

 

References
1.

Gupta  R, Holdford  D, Bilaver  L, Dyer  A, Holl  JL, Meltzer  D.  The economic impact of childhood food allergy in the United States.  JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(11):1026-1031. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2376ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.

Bock  SA, Muñoz-Furlong  A, Sampson  HA.  Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119(4):1016-1018. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.622PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.

Warren  CM, Otto  AK, Walkner  MM, Gupta  RS.  Quality of life among food allergic patients and their caregivers.  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2016;16(5):38. doi:10.1007/s11882-016-0614-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.

Walkner  M, Warren  C, Gupta  RS.  Quality of life in food allergy patients and their families.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 2015;62(6):1453-1461. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2015.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.

Gupta  RS, Springston  EE, Warrier  MR,  et al.  The prevalence, severity, and distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States.  Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):e9-e17. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0204PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.

Jackson  KD, Howie  LD, Akinbami  OJ. Trends in allergic conditions among children: United States, 1997-2011. NCHS Data Brief.2013;(121):1-8.
7.

Sicherer  SH, Muñoz-Furlong  A, Godbold  JH, Sampson  HA.  US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(6):1322-1326. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.03.029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.

Sicherer  SH, Muñoz-Furlong  A, Sampson  HA.  Prevalence of seafood allergy in the United States determined by a random telephone survey.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(1):159-165. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.04.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.

McGowan  EC, Keet  CA.  Prevalence of self-reported food allergy in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(5):1216-1219.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.07.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.

Verrill  L, Bruns  R, Luccioli  S.  Prevalence of self-reported food allergy in U.S. adults: 2001, 2006, and 2010.  Allergy Asthma Proc. 2015;36(6):458-467. doi:10.2500/aap.2015.36.3895PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.

Savage  J, Sicherer  S, Wood  R.  The natural history of food allergy.  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(2):196-203. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2015.11.024PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.

Jones  SM, Burks  AW.  Food Allergy.  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(23):2294-2295. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1713844PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.

Kamdar  TA, Peterson  S, Lau  CH, Saltoun  CA, Gupta  RS, Bryce  PJ.  Prevalence and characteristics of adult-onset food allergy.  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(1):114-5.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2014.07.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.

Hochstadter  E, Clarke  A, De Schryver  S,  et al.  Increasing visits for anaphylaxis and the benefits of early epinephrine administration: a 4-year study at a pediatric emergency department in Montreal, Canada.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(6):1888-1890.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2016.02.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.

Lin  RY, Anderson  AS, Shah  SN, Nurruzzaman  F.  Increasing anaphylaxis hospitalizations in the first 2 decades of life: New York State, 1990 -2006.  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(4):387-393. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60315-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.

Branum  AM, Lukacs  SL.  Food allergy among children in the United States.  Pediatrics. 2009;124(6):1549-1555. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1210PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.

Gupta  RS, Kim  JS, Springston  EE, Pongracic  JA, Wang  X, Holl  J.  Development of the Chicago Food Allergy Research Surveys: assessing knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of parents, physicians, and the general public.  BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:142. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-142PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.

Mercer  AW, Kreuter  F, Keeter  S, Stuart  EA.  Theory and practice in nonprobability surveys: parallels between causal inference and survey inference.  Public Opin Q. 2017;81(S1):250-271. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw060Google ScholarCrossref
19.

Elliott  MN, Haviland  AM.  Use of a web-based convenience sample to supplement a probability sample.  Surv Methodol. 2007;33(2):211-215.Google Scholar
20.

Jiang  J, Lahiri  P.  Mixed model prediction and small area estimation.  Test. 2006;15(1):1. doi:10.1007/BF02595419Google ScholarCrossref
21.

Rao  J, Molina  I.  Small Area Estimation. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2015. doi:10.1002/9781118735855
22.

Stata Statistical Software. Release 14 [computer program]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
23.

Rao  JNK, Scott  AJ.  The analysis of categorical data from complex sample surveys: χ2 tests for goodness of fit and independence in two-way tables.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1981;76(374):221-230. doi:10.1080/01621459.1981.10477633Google ScholarCrossref
24.

Jones  SM, Burks  AW.  Food allergy.  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1168-1176. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1611971PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.

Gupta  RS, Lau  CH, Sita  EE, Smith  B, Greenhawt  MJ.  Factors associated with reported food allergy tolerance among US children.  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2013;111(3):194-198.e4. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2013.06.026PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.

Lopata  AL, Kleine-Tebbe  J, Kamath  SD.  Allergens and molecular diagnostics of shellfish allergy: part 22 of the Series Molecular Allergology.  Allergo J Int. 2016;25(7):210-218. doi:10.1007/s40629-016-0124-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.

Wood  RA.  The natural history of food allergy.  Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 pt 3):1631-1637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.

Dunlop  JH, Keet  CA.  Epidemiology of food allergy.  Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2018;38(1):13-25. doi:10.1016/j.iac.2017.09.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.

Dutmer  CM, Kim  H, Searing  DA, Zoratti  EM, Liu  AH.  Asthma in inner city children: recent insights: United States.  Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;18(2):139-147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.

Shaw  TE, Currie  GP, Koudelka  CW, Simpson  EL.  Eczema prevalence in the United States: data from the 2003 National Survey of Children’s Health.  J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131(1):67-73. doi:10.1038/jid.2010.251PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.

Greenhawt  M, Weiss  C, Conte  ML, Doucet  M, Engler  A, Camargo  CA  Jr.  Racial and ethnic disparity in food allergy in the United States: a systematic review.  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2013;1(4):378-386. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2013.04.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.

Joseph  CL, Zoratti  EM, Ownby  DR,  et al.  Exploring racial differences in IgE-mediated food allergy in the WHEALS birth cohort.  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;116(3):219-224.e1. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2015.12.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.

Boyce  JA, Assa’ad  A, Burks  AW,  et al; NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: summary of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel report.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(6):1105-1118. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.

Sicherer  SH, Simons  FER; Section on Allergy and Immunology.  Epinephrine for first-aid management of anaphylaxis.  Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20164006. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-4006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.

Sicherer  SH, Sampson  HA.  Food allergy: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(2):291-307. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.11.020PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.

Sicherer  SH, Muñoz-Furlong  A, Sampson  HA.  Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: a 5-year follow-up study.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;112(6):1203-1207. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(03)02026-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.

Eller  E, Hansen  TK, Bindslev-Jensen  C.  Clinical thresholds to egg, hazelnut, milk and peanut: results from a single-center study using standardized challenges.  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2012;108(5):332-336. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2012.03.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.

Worm  M, Edenharter  G, Ruëff  F,  et al.  Symptom profile and risk factors of anaphylaxis in Central Europe.  Allergy. 2012;67(5):691-698. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02795.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.

Brown  SG, Stone  SF, Fatovich  DM,  et al.  Anaphylaxis: clinical patterns, mediator release, and severity.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(5):1141-1149.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.06.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.

Summers  CW, Pumphrey  RS, Woods  CN, McDowell  G, Pemberton  PW, Arkwright  PD.  Factors predicting anaphylaxis to peanuts and tree nuts in patients referred to a specialist center.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121(3):632-638.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.12.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.

Smith  PK, Hourihane  JO, Lieberman  P.  Risk multipliers for severe food anaphylaxis.  World Allergy Organ J. 2015;8(1):30. doi:10.1186/s40413-015-0081-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.

Togias  A, Cooper  SF, Acebal  ML,  et al.  Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–Sponsored Expert Panel.  Pediatr Dermatol. 2017;34(1):e1-e21. doi:10.1111/pde.13093PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.

National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. In: Oria  MP, Stallings  VA, eds.  Finding a Path to Safety in Food Allergy: Assessment of the Global Burden, Causes, Prevention, Management, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016.

Non-Invasive Diabetes Screening Helps Prevent Liver Disease  

0
Non-Invasive Diabetes Screening Helps Prevent Liver Disease  

Annual diabetes screening and a healthy lifestyle are the best prevention

 By Juan Pablo Frias, M.D., Medical Director and Principal Investigator, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

People with diabetes should be talking to their doctors about liver health. Unfortunately, few people living with diabetes focus on the connection between liver disease and type 2 diabetes — but they should. In fact, between 50 – 70 per cent of those with type 2 will develop fatty liver disease.

The most common liver disease, asymptomatic non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is inextricably linked with type 2 diabetes.  Because of the liver’s central role in so many body processes, excessive fat in the liver can have a ripple effect. It is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease and can make type 2 diabetes more difficult to treat.

NAFLD is characterized by a buildup of fat in the liver that’s unrelated to excessive alcohol intake. Some persons have excessive liver fat buildup without significant liver damage, so-called non-alcoholic fatty liver [NAFL] or “isolated steatosis”. In others, the liver fat causes inflammation and liver cell damage. This condition is more serious and is termed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)  It is estimated that about 20 per cent of patients with NAFL will progress to NASH. Without treatment, in some patients, NASH can progress to cirrhosis (chronic scarring and damage), liver failure, and possibly liver cancer.

NAFLD is a complicated condition, and is often associated with:

  • Overweight or obese
    • Insulin resistance(a condition in which the body doesn’t use its own insulin properly)
    • High blood sugar levels (prediabetesor type 2 diabetes)
    • High levels of fat, called triglycerides, in the blood
    • Sleep apnea
    • Polycystic ovary syndrome

 

Typically, NAFLD carries no symptoms unless in an advanced stage. Sometimes abnormal liver tests appear during a routine blood test and your doctor might suggest further testing. Healthcare providers might also order an ultrasound, CT scan, or MRI to see if your liver is abnormal, but none of these tests alone is the standard for diagnosing NAFLD.

NAFLD is typically diagnosed based on evidence of increased liver fat with an imaging procedure such as ultrasound and the elimination of other disorders that may lead to fatty liver. In some cases, a liver biopsy is ordered to look for the extent of inflammation, liver damage, or scarring. Nevertheless, early detection is critical because if caught in the early stages and treated with by lifestyle changes leading to weight loss, liver fat can be reduced and NAFLD may be reversed.

Screening and early detection of NAFLD can help to create actions that may prevent more serious conditions such as end-stage liver disease or liver cancer. Fortunately, there’s been growing adoption of new non-invasive screening methods that can detect NAFLD in the absence of indications or warning signs.

Non-Invasive Screening Now Available

This new painless approach to diabetes screening can be performed in the doctor’s office as part of an annual exam and is often covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other insurance plans.

FibroScan®, for example, is a 10-minute painless tool that measures your liver fat and liver stiffness (associated with fibrosis and cirrhosis).  FibroScan emits a pulse of energy, which you may feel like a slight vibration on your skin. FibroScan then measures the speed of this energy and immediately provides this information to your physician, who then uses it as part of a broader evaluation of your liver health.

When included as part of your overall health assessment, FibroScan can provide your healthcare provider valuable information on your liver health, and for many patients, remove the need for a painful liver biopsy or further testing. Test scores also provide information the physician needs to track your liver health over time and to make a referral to a specialist or recommend additional assessments in the event that your liver health changes.  In fact, a yearly NAFLD screening may eventually become standard practice similar to mammography or A1C blood sugar testing.

Lifestyle Change and Medication Checklist

According to The Diagnosis and Management of NAFLD: Practice Guidance from the AASLD, the following lifestyle changes can help reduce the amount of fat in a patient’s liver: 

Weight loss: Overall weight loss is the key to improving NAFLD and NASH. Losing between 5 – 10 per cent of weight helps to improve fat buildup, liver cell injury, and inflammation. Patients should consult their healthcare provider or dietician for recommendations about an appropriate diet.

Exercise: Exercise helps to indirectly prevent and help treat NAFLD by helping with weight reduction, improving insulin sensitivity, improving blood sugar control, and lowering the risk of heart disease.

Medicines: Although there are currently no medications approved by FDA for NAFLD, a certain type of diabetes pill — thiazolidinediones (TZDs) — boosts insulin sensitivity and has been shown to reduce liver fat and inflammation.

Diet: The Mediterranean diet is higher in monounsaturated fatty acids. This is helpful for both diabetes management and reducing the risk of heart disease. Limiting the intake of refined carbohydrate foods, such as sugary foods and high-fructose corn syrup, and replacing some carb intake with monounsaturated fat (found in olive oil and nuts) can also be helpful. Compliance with a calorie-restricted diet is associated with mobilization of liver fat. The overall sustainability of weight loss is most important, rather than the specific composition of the diet.

Limit alcohol consumption: NAFLD isn’t caused by drinking alcohol, but alcohol can make the condition worse, and people should seek advice from their doctor on how to avoid it altogether.

Understand your liver health

With advances in painless tools to assess and monitor your liver, it is now possible to track liver health as part of your overall health assessment.  This may be especially important for people living with type 2 diabetes, where excess liver fat has been associated with increased complications and mortality.  Learn more about your liver, how it may be affecting your overall health, and how a healthy lifestyle can improve your liver health.

 

Located in Los Angeles, Huntington Park and Panorama City, CA, National Research Institute has provided free quality medical care to patients with diabetes and performed clinical studies for patients with diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease and other medical conditions for over 30 years. https://nritrials.com/