Thresholds of clinical reactivity to milk, egg, peanut and sesame in immunoglobulin E‐dependent allergies: evaluation by double‐blind or single‐blind placebo‐controlled oral challenges

Abstract

The risk of asthma and anaphylactic shock to sesame and peanut is confirmed. Minimal reactive quantities show that, in order to guarantee a 95% safety for patients who are allergic to egg, peanut and milk, and on the basis of consumption of 100 g of food, the detection tests should ensure a sensitivity of 10 p.p.m. for egg, 24 p.p.m. for peanut and 30 p.p.m. for milk proteins. Oil allergies being considered, the limit of sensitivity should fall to 5 p.p.m.

Measured Indoor Aerosol Concentration Arising from Commonly-Used Food and Medicinal Powders: A Pilot Study

“…In an infant study (Cordle et al, 2013), 14 reports of cow's milk allergy reactions to intact milk protein challenges show an average LOAEL of 83.7 mg milk protein (range = 0.36-280 mg). Morisset et al (2003) found that the ingestion of 0.1 mL of milk (0.103 mg) or < 10 mg of solid milk particles produced allergic reactions in some instances. As mentioned earlier, a case report by Larramendi et al (2013) revealed that the casein protein which was present in a 'dust free chalk' was responsible for the development of rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma in a 6 year old schoolchild.…”

Hidden exogenous proteins in wine: problems, methods of detection and related legislation - a review

“…Moneret-Vautrin and Kanny (2004) reported that 18% of egg-allergic individuals can react to a concentration equal to or lower than 65 mg, while the threshold for egg white able of triggering an allergic reaction in 1% of sensitised people was between 1 and 2 mg. Similarly, Morisset et al (2003) performed a DBPC food challenge with egg-allergic individuals and reported that the lowest adverse effect level for crude egg was 2 mg.…”

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, nutrition and allergies [NDA] on a request from the Commission relating to the evaluation of allergenic foods for labelling purposes

“…In risk assessment terms these studies would establish the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) which however does not provide a scientific basis for the recommendation of acceptable levels of allergen intake and the determination of a NOAEL (Morisset et al, 2003a).…”

“…This approach, although theoretically interesting and appealing, has yielded conflicting results in clinical studies of different populations (Osterballe and Bindslev-Jensen, 2003;Sampson, 2001;Boyano Martínez et al, 2001;Morisset et al, 2003a;Niggemann et al, 2001). Since the specific IgE levels and skin test are only loosely related to the likelihood and severity of an allergic reaction and currently only applicable to a small number of allergens (for example peanut, egg and milk), knowing the specific immunological sensitisation level will not be helpful for the consumer or allow the industry to safely target products to consumers with different degrees of sensitisation.…”