Philip Morris
Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Are Your Mushrooms Safe to Eat?
Fields
- Type
- SCRT, REPORT, SCIENTIFIC
- BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY
- CHAR, CHART, GRAPH, TABLE, MAPS
- BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Area
- LOGUE,MAYADA/OFFICE
- Site
- N426
- Characteristic
- EXTR, EXTRA
- Document File
- 2025545619/2025546382/Harvard University Office of
- Continuing Education Short Course Program Harvard School
- of Public Health
- Continuing Education Short Course Program Harvard School
- Master ID
- 2025545673/6381
Related Documents:- 2025545673-6381 Risk Analysis in Occupational and Environmental Health 910904 - 910906
- 2025545684 Telephone Locations and Protocol
- 2025545689-5696 Risk Assessment for Carcinogens: A Comparison of Approaches of the Acgih and the Epa
- 2025545697 Hps Newsletter Interview with A Risk Expert
- 2025545698-5711 Science and Its Limits: the Regulator's Dilemma
- 2025545713-5721 Risk / Benefit Analysis
- 2025545722-5725 Risk Management Commentary for Dr. D. Allan Bromley Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
- 2025545726-5729 Risk Assessment and Comparisons: An Introduction
- 2025545750-5792 Risk Assessment of Chemical Carcinogens: Is It Time for A Change?
- 2025545795-5799 Tools of Risk Analysis Applications of Epidemiology
- 2025545800-5810 Notice of Intended Changes - Benzene
- 2025545811-5822 Epidemiology in Risk Assessment for Regulatory Policy
- 2025545824-5850 Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Use of Animal and Other Data As Predictors of Human Risk
- 2025545851-5871 Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Uncertainties in Predicting Human Risks
- 2025545872-5881 How Do Cancer Risks Predicted From Animal Bioassays Compare with the Epidemiologic Evidence? the Case of Ethylene Dibromide
- 2025545882-5887 Use of Biological Assays in Short-Term Assessment of Inhaled Substances
- 2025545888
- 2025545892-5899 the Rat As An Experimental Animal
- 2025545901-5907 Non-Cancer Endpoints
- 2025545910-5939 Cancer Facts & Figures - 890000
- 2025545940-5941 Cancer Facts & Figures - 890000
- 2025545942-5944 Get - the - Lead - Out Guru Challenged A Decade-Old Scientific Argument Over the Effects of Low-Level Lead on Iq Turns Nasty Following Allegations of Misconduct
- 2025545945-5948
- 2025545949-5958 the Question of Thresholds for Radiation and Chemical Carcinogenesis
- 2025545959-5980 Are There Thresholds for Carcinogenesis? the Thorny Problem of Low-Level Exposure
- 2025545981-5990 Perspectives on Comparing Risks of Environmental Carcinogens
- 2025545991-5998 Acceptable Cancer Risks: Probabilities and Beyond
- 2025546000-6011 Ideas in Pathology Pivotal Role of Increased Cell Proliferation in Human Carcinogenesis
- 2025546012-6017 Cell Proliferation in Carcinogenesis
- 2025546019-6027 the Role of Expert Judgement in Risk Analysis
- 2025546029-6039 the Respiratory Tract As A Route of Exposure
- 2025546040-6045 the Respiratory Tract As A Portal of Entry for Toxic Particles
- 2025546047-6062 Limitations to the Use of Employee Exposure Data on Air Contaminants in Epidemiologic Studies
- 2025546063-6083 Benefit - Cost Analysis of Environmental Regulation: Case Studies of Hazardous Air Pollutants
- 2025546086-6089 Legislative and Regulatory Aspects of Risk
- 2025546090-6099 Connecticut's Dioxin Ambient Air Quality Standard
- 2025546100-6103
- 2025546105 Annals of Radiation Calamity on Meadow Street
- 2025546106 Caution Urged When Using Insect Repellents
- 2025546116 Volatile Organics and Inorganics Action Levels 900400
- 2025546134-6135 Summary of Radon Test Results of the Household Testing Program
- 2025546141-6145 Introduction to Discussion Sessions
- 2025546146-6149 Risk Assessment in Environmental and Occupational Health Risk of Alar (Daminozide)
- 2025546150-6160 Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food
- 2025546161-6162 Pesticides, Risk, and Applesauce
- 2025546163-6168 Daminozide Special Review Technical Support Document - Preliminary Determination to Cancel the Food Uses of Daminozide
- 2025546169 Daminozide / Udmh
- 2025546170-6172 the Relative Risk of Daminozide (Alar / Kylar) Use
- 2025546173 Be Most Wary of Nature's Own Pesticides
- 2025546174-6175 A Movie Star Pares the Apple Industry
- 2025546176-6183 Summary of Toxicology Data on Daminozide and Udmh
- 2025546184-6194 Attachment I Graphs of Data From NCI / Ntp 83 Daminozide
- 2025546195-6196
- 2025546197-6202 Daminozide Special Review Technical Support Document - Preliminary Determination to Cancel the Food Uses of Daminozide
- 2025546203-6224 Regulatory Decision - Making Under Uncertainty: the Case of Alar
- 2025546226 Epa Moves to Reassess the Risk of Dioxin Urged on by the Scientific Community, Epa Is Developing A New Model for Estimating Dioxin's Risk
- 2025546227 US Government Orders New Look at Dioxin the Environmental Protection Agency Is Evaluating Data From the Past Decade That Suggest Dioxin's Toxicity May Be Overestimated. A Risk Assessment Model Based on Biological Mechanism Is Being Drawn Up.
- 2025546228-6235 Dioxin Toxicity: New Studies Prompt Debate, Regulatory Action New Data on Dioxin's Effect on Humans, A Clearer Picture of the Cellular Events It Precipitates, and New Animal Toxicity Studies May Provide Epa with A Firm Basis for Regulation
- 2025546236-6250 the Regulation of Gene Expression by 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
- 2025546251-6253 Dioxin Risks Revisited Armed with A New Understanding of How Dioxin Works on the Molecular Level, A Number of Scientists Are Challenging Epa to Change the Way It Does Risk Assessment
- 2025546255-6258 Lead Toxicity Case Study for Short Course on Risk Analysis in Occupational and Environmental Health 910904 - 910906
- 2025546259-6267 Lead
- 2025546268-6275 Lead in Bone: Implications for Toxicology During Pregnancy and Lactation
- 2025546276-6281 the Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Lead in Childhood An 11 - Year Follow-Up Report
- 2025546282-6285
- 2025546298-6321 Review 890000 Alice Hamilton Lecture Lead and Human Health:Background and Recent Findings
- 2025546323-6348 Traps and Errors in Risk Analysis
- 2025546349-6356 Health Risks the Perception of Reality and the Realty of Perception
- 2025546357-6362 Communicating Risk Under Title III of Sara: Strategies for Explaining Very Small Risks in A Community Context
- 2025546363-6368 Industrial Risk Perceptions
- 2025546369-6370 Too Many Rodent Carcinogens: Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis
- 2025546371-6373 Has Risk Assessment Become Too 'conservative'?
- 2025546374-6378 Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions
- 2025546379-6381 Telling Reporters About Risk Dealing with Reporters Needn't Be the Least Agreeable Part of the Job.
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Named Person
- Erickson
- Toth
- Request
- Stmn/R1-072
- Named Organization
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- Date Loaded
- 24 May 1999
- UCSF Legacy ID
- jkp02a00
Document Images
Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health September 4, 1991
ARE YOUR MUSHROOMS SAFE TO EAT?
Raw commercial mushrooms, obtained from the supplier of local food stores, have been tested in
a bioassay (Toth and Erickson, 1986) similar to those used for synthetic organic chemicals. We
can therei`ore perform a risk assessment on raw mushrooms similar in all respects to the risk
assessments performed on synthetic organic chemicals. In the mushroom experiment, there was
one control group of 50 mice for each sex and one experimental group of 50 mice for each sex,
the former kept on a normal diet and the latter fed the material under test at an average rate of
about 1.57,000 mg/kg-day for their lifetime (assuming mice weigh 30 g). Feeding of the dosed
group was ad Ilb mushrooms (without other feed) 3 days/week, normal diet 4 days/week; while
the control group received the normal diet. Average mushroom consumption was 11
g/day/mouse during days on which mushrooms were the only food available (mushrooms are
about 90°/) water).
The experiment was continued for the natural lifetime of the animals, and no differences were
seen in the lifefime of the dosed animals versus the control groups. However, the average
weight of the dosed animals was substantially lower than the average weight of the control
groups. There were increased incidences of tumors in several organs:
TurrnDr site:type Sex Control Group Dosed Group }_Significance
Bone :various F 0/50 8/50 0.003
Bone:various M 0/50 8/50 0.003
Forestomach:various F 0/50 19/50 2.3 x 10-'
Forestomach:various M 2/50 14/50 0.00094
Liver:hepatoma F 0/50 4/50 0.059
Liver:hepatoma M 1/50 6/50 0.055
Lunca:All tumors F 13/50 20/50 0.1
Lung:Adenoma F 6/50 12/50 0.096
Lunci:,Adenocarcinoma F 7/50 11/50 0.22
Lung:All tumors M 17/50 31/50 0.0045
Lunci:Adenoma M 12/50 24/50 0.006
Lunc~:Adenocarcinoma M 9/50 13/50 0.23
1

Risk An~dysis in Environmental and Occupational Health September 4, 1991
From these results we can construct the following estimates for potency (q, and q,*) in mice.
't'umor site:type Sex q, (kg-d/mg) q,* (kg-d/mg)
Elone:Various F 1.1 x 1e 1.9 x 10,
Elone:Various M 1.1 x 10, 1.9 x 1e
F'orestomach:Various F 3.0 x 1e 4.4 x 1e
Forestomach:Various M 1.8 x 10-1 2.9 x 10'
Lung:Total F 1.3 x 10-' 2.9 x 10'
Lung:Total M 3.5 x 1e 5.8 x 10'
Using the EPA methodology, the value chosen from these would be the highest value of q,* that
corresponds to a statistically significant result - 5.8 x 1V kg-d/mg - and this value would then
have to be extrapolated to humans using a surface area factor of (70 kgI30 g)"' = 13.26. Such
an approach leads to an upper bound estimate of carcinogenic potency in humans of
7.7 x 10"6 kg-dlmg.
What does this imply for eating; raw mushrooms in your salad?
(1)
A upper bound estimate of potency of 7.7 x 10' kg-dlmg implies that the dose rate
required to give an upper bound estimate of risk of 10' is 0.013 mg/kg-d, or about 23 g
(0.82 oz) per lifetime.
(2) A consumption of 1 oz/month (13.3 mgikg-d) of raw mushrooms corresponds to an upper
bound estimate of lifetime risk of 1 x 1V.
(3)
According to Toth and Erickson (1986), estimated annual US consumption of these
mushrooms was 340 x 106 kg in 1984-1985. This was an annual average per capita
consumption of about 55 mg/kg-d, corresponding to an upper bound estimate of lifetime
risk of 4.3 x 1V. Presumably not all the mushrooms would be eaten raw, but we have
no idea. what would be the effect on the carcinogenicity of the mushrooms of cooking
them.
(4) With the figures given in (3), the upper bound estimate of the annual number of cancers
expected in the US to be due to mushrooms is about 8500!
2

Risk Anaf ysis in Environmental and Occupational Health September 4, 1991
Comment
Mushrooms are known to contain various compounds, including hydrazine analogs, that are
mutagenico in vitro and/or carcinogenic in laboratory animals under certain conditions. An extract
of mushrcoms of the type tested has also been shown to be mutagenic. However, the spectrum
of tumors found in this experiment on raw mushrooms was not what might be expected from the
known carcinogenic compounds present in the mushrooms. Presumably there are different
carcinogenic compounds are also present, or there was an interaction with other chemicals
present.
Referemu's
Toth, B. and J. Erickson. 1986. Cancer Induction in mice by feeding of the uncooked cultivated
mushroom of commerce Agaricus Bisporus. Cancer Research 46 (1986) 4007-4011.
