To date, one of the most heavily cited assessments of caffeine safety in the peer-reviewed literature is that issued by Health Canada (Nawrot et al., 2003). Since then, >10,000 papers have been published related to caffeine, including hundreds of reviews on specific human health effects; however, to date, none have compared the wide range of topics evaluated by Nawrot et al. (2003). Thus, as an update to this foundational publication, we conducted a systematic review of data on potential adverse effects of caffeine published from 2001 to June 2015. Subject matter experts and research team participants developed five PECO (population, exposure, comparator, and outcome) questions to address five types of outcomes (acute toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, bone and calcium effects, behavior, and development and reproduction) in four healthy populations (adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children) relative to caffeine intake doses determined not to be associated with adverse effects by Health Canada (comparators: 400 mg/day for adults [10 g for lethality], 300 mg/day for pregnant women, and 2.5 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents). The a priori search strategy identified >5000 articles that were screened, with 381 meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for the five outcomes (pharmacokinetics was addressed contextually, adding 46 more studies). Data were extracted by the research team and rated for risk of bias and indirectness (internal and external validity). Selected no- and low-effect intakes were assessed relative to the population-specific comparator. Conclusions were drawn for the body of evidence for each outcome, as well as endpoints within an outcome, using a weight of evidence approach. When the total body of evidence was evaluated and when study quality, consistency, level of adversity, and magnitude of response were considered, the evidence generally supports that consumption of up to 400 mg caffeine/day in healthy adults is not associated with overt, adverse cardiovascular effects, behavioral effects, reproductive and developmental effects, acute effects, or bone status. Evidence also supports consumption of up to 300 mg caffeine/day in healthy pregnant women as an intake that is generally not associated with adverse reproductive and developmental effects. Limited data were identified for child and adolescent populations; the available evidence suggests that 2.5 mg caffeine/kg body weight/day remains an appropriate recommendation. The results of this systematic review support a shift in caffeine research to focus on characterizing effects in sensitive populations and establishing better quantitative characterization of interindividual variability (e.g., epigenetic trends), subpopulations (e.g., unhealthy populations, individuals with preexisting conditions), conditions (e.g., coexposures), and outcomes (e.g., exacerbation of risk-taking behavior) that could render individuals to be at greater risk relative to healthy adults and healthy pregnant women. This review, being one of the first to apply s...

The debate on the safety of and regulatory approaches for caffeine continues among various stakeholders and regulatory authorities. This decision-making process comes with significant challenges, particularly when considering the complexities of the available scientific data, making the formulation of clear science-based regulatory guidance more difficult. To allow for discussions of a number of key issues, the North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) convened a panel of subject matter experts for a caffeine-focused session entitled "Caffeine: Friend or Foe?," which was held during the 2015 ILSI Annual Meeting. The panelists' expertise covered topics ranging from the natural occurrence of caffeine in plants and interindividual metabolism of caffeine in humans to specific behavioral, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects related to caffeine consumption. Each presentation highlighted the potential risks, benefits, and challenges that inform whether caffeine exposure warrants concern. This paper aims to summarize the key topics discussed during the session.

In 2016–2017, we conducted and published a systematic review on caffeine safety that set out to determine whether conclusions that were presented in the heavily cited Health Canada assessment, remain supported by more recent data. To that end, we reviewed data from 380 studies published between June 2001 and June 2015, which were identified from an initial batch of over 5000 articles through a stringent search and evaluation process. In the current paper, we use plain language to summarize our process and findings, with the intent of sharing additional context for broader reach to the general public. We addressed whether caffeine doses previously determined not to be associated with adverse effects by Health Canada (400 mg/day for healthy adults, 300 mg/day for pregnant women, 2.5 mg/kg body weight/day for adolescents and children, and 10 g/day for acute effects) remain appropriate for five outcome areas (acute toxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, bone & calcium effects, behavior, and development and reproduction) in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children. We used a weight-of-evidence approach to draw conclusions for each of the five outcomes, as well as more specific endpoints within those outcomes, which considered study quality, consistency, level of adversity, and magnitude of response. In general, updated evidence confirms the levels of intake that were put forth by Health Canada in 2003 as not being associated with any adverse health effects, and our results support a shift in caffeine research from healthy to sensitive populations.

No abstract

Calcium nitrate has been reported to benefit reproductive outcomes in sows and their offspring when administered via the feed (15–19 mg/kg-bw/day) during the periparturient period. Traditionally, dietary nitrate had been considered a methemoglobinemia (MetHb) risk in swine. Similar hazard concerns have existed in humans, but a recent benefit/risk analysis established that nitrate levels associated with well-recognized health benefits outweigh potential risks. A similar benefit/risk perspective in swine was lacking and challenged by sparse published hazard data, often referenced within larger reviews related to all livestock. The objective of this review was to better characterize the potential for adverse health and performance effects reported in the literature for swine consuming nitrate, and to provide metrics for evaluating the reliability of the studies reviewed. Supplemental exposure via feed or drinking water was considered for any life stage, dose, and exposure duration. More than 30 relevant studies, including case reports and reviews, examined calcium, potassium, sodium, or unspecified nitrate salts at doses up to 1,800 mg nitrate/kg-bw/day for exposures ranging from 1 to 105 days. The studies primarily evaluated weight gain, blood methemoglobin levels, or vitamin A homeostasis in sows or growing swine. An extensive review of the literature showed reports of adverse effects at low nitrate doses to be of low reliability. Conversely, reliable studies corroborate nitrate intake from feed or drinking water at levels equal to or greater than EFSA’s no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for swine of 410 mg nitrate/kg-bw/day, with no MetHb or other adverse effects on reproduction, growth, or vitamin A levels. Using a weight-of-evidence evaluation, we have moderate to high confidence that the NOAEL for nitrate supplementation in swine is likely between 600 and 800 mg/kg-bw/day. These levels are several-fold higher than dietary nitrate concentrations (19 mg/kg-bw/day) that are known to benefit birth outcomes in sows. This review elucidates the quality and reliability of the information sources historically used to characterize nitrate in swine feed as a contaminant of concern. Results from this evaluation can assist risk managers (e.g., regulatory officials and veterinarians) in consideration of proposed benefits, as well as reassuring swine producers that low-level nitrate supplementation is not anticipated to be a concern.