Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–96

Electronic information resources for food toxicology

Carl K. Winter *Department of Food Science and Technology, Uniersity of California, Dais, CA 95616, USA

Abstract

This manuscript provides a brief overview of many useful Internet resources concerning food toxicology. Specifictopic areas include pesticide residues, food additives, natural toxins, environmental contaminants, and food allergies;numerous links and evaluative information are provided within each topic area. Several helpful Internet resourceshave been identified and include government, industry, academic, and consumer sites. © 2002 Elsevier Science IrelandLtd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Internet; World Wide Web; Food toxicology; Pesticides; Natural toxins; Environmental contaminants; Food additives;Food allergens

www.elsevier.com/locate/toxicol

1. Introduction

The safety of the food supply is an issue ofsignificant societal interest. We are all food con-sumers and are all influenced by the practices usedfor production, processing, preparation, and han-dling of our foods. Reports of foodborne illnessoutbreaks and/or potential chemical hazards re-sulting from food consumption are often followedby requests of consumers or organizations tochange existing practices to improve the safety ofthe food supply. These requests subsequently infl-uence the activities of our lawmakers, regulatoryagencies, food producers, and researchers as oursociety strives to determine what actions, if any,should be implemented to improve food safety.

In prior years, public access to pertinent foodtoxicology information was not readily available.

Data from food toxicology research studies wasprimarily found in scientific journals that fre-quently required those searching for the informa-tion to have adequate library access. Results ofgovernment monitoring programs, regulatorypractices, and safety evaluation schemes wereeven more difficult for consumers to obtain.

The introduction and rapid growth of the Inter-net, combined with the accessibility and improvedcomputational capabilities of personal computers,has provided our society with dramatically im-proved access to scientific and health information,including many food toxicology resources. Unfor-tunately, this phenomenally increased access toinformation may be viewed as a double-edgedsword. While consumers, producers, regulators,researchers, and lawmakers presently have thecapability to extract a large amount of informa-tion from the Internet, our present challengesinvolve the quality, rather than the quantity, ofinformation accessed. Since the Internet has no

* Tel.: +1-530-752-5448.E-mail address: ckwinter@ucdavis.edu (C.K. Winter).

0300-483X/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0 300 -483X(02 )00024 -0

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–9690

formal peer-review process, much of the informa-tion available may be unreliable, incorrect, ormisleading. Those accessing information from theInternet are required to make their own interpre-tations as to the reliability of the information andsuch interpretations may be significantly influ-enced by the layout in which the information ispresented, the rhetoric used, and the personalvalues of the recipients of the information. Fac-tual and reliable science-based information, unlesspresented in a visually-appealing and compellingmanner, may have trouble competing with less-re-liable yet more entertaining information presenta-tions in the eyes of many potential Internet users.

2. Scope

This review identifies several Internet resourcesthat relate to the broad topic of food toxicology.It is not intended to be a comprehensive reviewbut rather a sampling of available materials con-sidered by the author to represent useful andreliable food toxicology resources. Readers mustalso be aware of the transitory nature of theInternet; sites reviewed in this manuscript maychange dramatically or disappear entirely duringthe interval between manuscript submission andpublication. It is equally likely that new andsuperior sites will be developed in the comingmonths and years while the sites described in thispaper may rapidly become outdated or obsolete.

For the purpose of this manuscript, food toxi-cology is defined as the study of the potentialeffects of chemicals found on foods destined forhuman consumption. Specific sections are catego-rized by the type of food chemical (i.e. pesticideresidue, food additive, natural toxin, environmen-tal contaminant) and are designed to consideravailable and reliable information concerning tox-icological effects, regulation, monitoring, and riskassessment. While such chemicals may also con-tribute to toxicological concerns of an occupa-tional, environmental, or ecological nature, thisreview is limited to food toxicology aspects.

Food toxicology also represents a subset of thebroader field of food safety, which includes micro-

biological aspects of food in addition to toxico-logical aspects. The US Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC) estimates that approximately 76million cases of foodborne disease, in addition to325 000 hospitalizations and 5000 deaths, resultannually in the US from microorganisms such asbacteria, viruses, parasites, and prions (Mead etal., 1999). Clearly, microbiological food safetyrepresents a critical food safety area and one thatmaintains an enormous presence on the Internet.While microbiological food safety issues do notrepresent the focus of this review, readers inter-ested in this aspect of food safety should visit oneof the many comprehensive microbiological foodsafety websites. Recommended examples includethe US government’s food safety site (http://www.foodsafety.gov), the Partnership for FoodSafety Education (http://www.fightbac.org), theFoodborne Illness Education Information Center(http://www.nal.usda.gov/foodborne/index.html),the North Carolina State food safety website(http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/agentinfo),the Iowa State University Food Safety Project(http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/families/fs/homepage.html), the FoodSafe Program of theUniversity of California (http://foodsafe.ucdavis.edu), and the World Health Organization FoodSafety Programme (http://www.who.int/fsf).

3. Pesticide residues

In contrast to the millions of cases of food-borne illness attributed to food microorganisms inthe US each year, the incidence of worldwidehuman poisoning from pesticide residues in foodsis extremely low (Ferrer and Cabral, 1995). Nev-ertheless, consumer concern over pesticideresidues in the food supply remains high, and72–82% of Americans consider pesticide residuesin foods to represent a health hazard (Bruhn etal., 1998). In addition, the Food Quality Protec-tion Act (FQPA), passed by the US Congress in1996, has set much more stringent requirementsfor pesticides that may result in food, water, orresidential consumer exposure and has recently

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–96 91

resulted in the elimination of several pesticide uses(Winter, 2001). More restrictions are anticipatedin the future.

The most comprehensive US government Inter-net resources for pesticide residues have beendeveloped by the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The EPA’s Office of PesticidePrograms has a site (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides) that covers all aspects of pesticide reg-ulation and education. Links to the two majorlaws [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-cide Act (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fifra.htm)and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/ch9.html)are provided. The site contains detailed informa-tion about pesticide registration practices and spe-cific sections on pesticides for consumers(http: / /www.epa .gov /pesticides /consumer .htm)and for children (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/kids.htm). Recent regulatory decisions and/orFederal Register notices are posted, as areproduct recalls. The site also contains linksto EPA’s Science Policy Issues and GuidanceDocuments (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/) and a discussion of endocrine disruptors(http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm).EPA has also developed a rather cumbersome,but still helpful, website listing the maximum al-lowable residue levels, or tolerances, for commod-ity/pesticide combinations (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/tolerance/tisinfo/).

Activities related to FQPA are addressed in aseparate EPA site (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/fqpa/). This site provides background for thehighlights of FQPA, including the 10× factorand the aggregate and cumulative exposure provi-sions. As a requirement of FPQA, EPA developeda Consumer-Right-to-Know brochure (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food).

A major challenge facing EPA is the reassess-ment of the allowable levels, or tolerances, for afamily of pesticides known as theorganophophates, or OPs. Under the cumulativeexposure provisions of FQPA, all members of thisfamily must be considered together rather than asseparate pesticides; this requirement provides sig-nificant scientific challenges that are being ad-

dressed partly through an outside group known asthe Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee(TRAC). A separate webpage has been devoted toTRAC (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/) andone of the outcomes of TRAC has been thepublishing of ‘transparent’ documents via the In-ternet for specific pesticide risk assessments (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/status.htm). Theserisk assessments summarize the available toxico-logical and exposure data for the OPs and providevaluable information concerning contemporaryrisk assessment practices and the factors that infl-uence consumer exposure.

While the EPA has the primary responsibilityfor registering pesticide products for use and forestablishing tolerance levels, the US Food andDrug Administration (FDA) and the US Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) are the federal agen-cies responsible for monitoring pesticide residuesin the food supply.

The FDA enforces pesticide tolerances by mon-itoring domestic and imported foods. Annual re-ports summarizing FDA’s pesticide monitoringefforts are available at the FDA website (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/pesrpts.html). In addi-tion to the reports, the FDA has made the rawdatabases for the past few years available fordownload on the same site. A separate FDAwebsite (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/comm/tds-toc.html) has been developed to discuss resultsand to provide raw residue data for the Total DietStudy, which is conducted annually as a market-basket survey tool to estimate potential dietaryexposure to pesticides.

The USDA operates the Pesticide Data Pro-gram (PDP) that collects data on pesticideresidues to support EPA activities for pesticideregistration and dietary risk assessment. In con-trast with the FDA’s monitoring program, whichserves primarily as a tolerance enforcement pro-gram, PDP more randomly analyzes samples offruits, vegetables, and processed food forms toprovide more realistic estimates of residue levelsreaching consumers. Results from PDP monitor-ing, as well as raw data tables that can be down-loaded, are available at the PDP website (http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/index.htm).

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–9692

State governments are also involved in pesticideregulation. The largest state pesticide regulatoryprogram is that of the California Department ofPesticide Regulation (CDPR). Its website (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/) is quite comprehensive and in-cludes considerable information concerning laws,regulations, publications, and pest managementpractices. California is unique in the US as itrequires all agricultural uses of pesticides to bereported; results of the annual tabulations of pes-ticide use are available at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. CDPR is also very activein taking food residue samples to enforce toler-ances and provides annual summaries of itsresults. The 1997 results are available athttp://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.Unfortunately, the raw residue data tables are notyet available through the Internet.

At the international level, the Food and Agri-culture Organization of the World Health Organi-zation (FAO/WHO), through the JointFAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, estab-lishes allowable levels for pesticide residues infoods, known as MRLs, or Maximum ResidueLevels. These levels are in effect for hundreds ofdifferent countries (see http://www.codexalimentarius . net / CONTACT / new – list.HTM) and can be obtained from http://apps.fao.org/CodexSystem/pestdes/pest–q-e.htm.

An excellent University source for pesticide in-formation is the Extension Toxicology Network,or EXTOXNET (http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet), developed by toxicologists from theUniversity of California Davis, Cornell Univer-sity, Oregon State University, the University ofIdaho, and Michigan State University. The sitecontains easy-to-read consumer information con-cerning pesticides as well as technical summariesof current pesticide-related issues. Of particularvalue are the Pesticide Information Profiles (http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/pesticide/pesthome.htm) that provide short summaries oftoxicological information and references fornearly 200 individual pesticides. The Pesticide In-formation Profiles provide an easy way to locatekey toxicological parameters for pesticides such asthe Reference Dose, the Acceptable Daily Intake,and the Permissible Exposure Level.

A related University site is the National Pesti-cide Telecommunications Network, administeredby Oregon State University (http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/tech.htm). This site provides access toseveral pesticide toxicology and health informa-tion databases and pesticide use statistics.

4. Food additives

Chemicals considered as food additives repre-sent a wide variety of substances and have numer-ous properties and functions. They are alsoregulated in a number of different ways; some areconsidered to be ‘Generally Recognized as Safe(GRAS)’ while others are more strictly regulated(Ditschun and Winter, 2000).

In the US, the FDA has primary responsibilityfor the regulation and approval of food additives.FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nu-trition has a comprehensive website at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ lrd/foodadd.html. Con-sumer information is available at (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/opa-bckg.html) andincludes summaries of issues such as fat substi-tutes, sugar substitutes, and monosodium gluta-mate. Useful information is also available forfood industry audiences, including a list of techni-cal documents (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/opa-tech.html) containing information such asguidelines for submitting food additive petitions,inspection results, notification programs, petitionstatus, and threshold of regulation exemptions.The site also contains the Everything Added toFood in the United States (EAFUS) food additivedatabase, which consists of administrative, chemi-cal and toxicological information on over 2000substances directly added to food, including sub-stances regulated by the FDA as direct, ‘sec-ondary’ direct, and color additives, and GRASand prior-sanctioned substances as well as admin-istrative and chemical (but not toxicological) in-formation on another 1000 substances. Anexcellent review of the chronological development(through 1995) of US food additive regulations bythe Congressional Research Service is available athttp://cnie.org/nle/pest-5.html. Another database(http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ dms/opa-indt.html)

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–96 93

includes the list of ‘Indirect’ additives used infood contact substances such as adhesives andcomponents of coatings, paper and paperboardcomponents, polymers, and adjuvants and pro-duction aids. These are generally substances thatcome into contact with food as part of packagingor processing equipment, but are not intended tobe added directly to food.

New food additives introduced into US foodrequire premarket approval and the FDA hasdeveloped guidelines for the safety assessment offood additives. The most recent version of theseguidelines, known as the ‘Redbook’ was issued inJuly 2000 and can be obtained from the FDA athttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ redbook/red-toca.html. The Redbook provides recommendationsand guidelines for animal toxicity studies andhuman studies.

At the international level, the Joint FAO/WHOExpert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)(see http://www.who.int/pcs/jecfa/what– is– jecfa.htm) is the expert committee that evaluates thesafety of food additives, as well as residues ofveterinary drugs in food, naturally occurring toxi-cants, and contaminants in food. Since 1956,JECFA has evaluated more than 1300 food addi-tives. A comprehensive listing of all of theseJECFA food additive evaluations is provided athttp://www.inchem.org/jecfa.html.

Other organizations, such as the UK Instituteof Food Science and Technology (http://www.ifst.org/ifstfaq3.htm) and the InternationalFood Information Council Foundation (http://ific.org/mediaguide/) provide a variety of con-sumer-friendly educational materials on foodadditives. EXTOXNET also contains helpful infor-mation about food additives (http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/foodmain.htm). Amore controversial site is provided by the con-sumer advocacy group Center for Science in thePublic Interest (CSPI) (http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm) which raises safetyconcerns and urges consumers to avoid specificfood additives. Interesting counter-arguments arefrequently raised by the American Council forScience and Health (ACSH), which receives fund-ing from a diversified group of more than 300

foundations, trade associations, corporations andindividuals. Numerous press releases, editorials,and articles can be found on the ACSH site(http://acsh.org/food/index.html) that maintainthe safety of additives in our food.

5. Natural toxins

While synthetic chemicals such as pesticideresidues and food additives typically generate thegreatest levels of public concern among food toxi-cology topics, the food supply contains numerouschemicals of natural origin that pose potentialpublic health risks as well. Many of the naturaltoxins found in food are summarized by Ames etal. (1990) who contend that the cancer risks fromnatural toxins in food far exceed the theoreticalrisks from synthetic chemicals. A comprehensiveCarcinogenicity Potency Database developed byAmes and others at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory is found at http://potency.berkeley.edu/cpdb.html. This site provides analysis of 5152experiments on 1298 chemicals, many of whichare naturally occurring. For each experiment, in-formation includes the species, strain, and sex oftest animal, experimental protocol features suchas route of administration, duration of dosing,dose level(s) in mg/kg body weight per day, histo-pathology, tumor incidence, carcinogenic potency(TD50) and its statistical significance, the shape ofthe dose–response curve, the author’s opinion asto carcinogenicity, and literature citations. A re-port of the National Research Council of theNational Academy of Sciences similarly con-cluded that ‘natural components of the diet mayprove to be of greater concern than syntheticcomponents with respect to cancer risk, althoughadditional evidence is required before definitiveconclusions can be drawn’ (NRC, 1996). Since theregulatory control of natural toxins is much morelimited than that for pesticide residues or foodadditives, Internet resources discussing naturaltoxins in foods are less abundant.

FDA does regulate several mycotoxins (naturaltoxins produced from fungi) in food and provides

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–9694

action levels for aflatoxins in food (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/ lrd/fdaact.htmlcafla) as wellas draft guidance and scientific analysis for pat-ulin in apple products and fumonisin mycotoxinsin human foods and animal feeds (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ lrd/pestadd.html). The US-DA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and StockyardsAdministration provides a food producer’s back-ground on aflatoxins (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/newsroom/backgrounders/b-aflatox.htm). Aninternational mycotoxin reference site, with muchinformation in Spanish, is found at http://www.mycotoxin.com/mycotoxin/ while the Pro-gramme on Mycotoxins and ExperimentalCarcinogenesis site (http://www.mrc.ac.za/promec/background.html) describes research ac-tivities of a multidisciplinary team of mycotoxinresearchers over the past 25 years. Universitywebsites containing useful mycotoxin informationare found through EXTOXNET (http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm)and Texas A&M University (http://plantpathol-ogy . tamu . edu / Texlab / Multicrop / mycotoxins.html).

The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Ap-plied Nutrition has compiled a poisonous plantdatabase (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/djw/readme.html). A detailed poisonous plant bibliog-raphy is provided that is complemented by acomprehensive list of vascular plants.

EXTOXNET (http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/natural/ace.htm) provides shortsummaries of several types of plant toxins such asenzyme inhibitors, cyanogenic glycosides, glucosi-nolates, lectin proteins, lathyrogens, and alkaloidsand discusses their sources, occurrence, and po-tential toxicological effects.

6. Environmental contaminants

In addition to chemicals intentionally appliedto food crops (pesticides), added directly to foods(food additives) or found in foods naturally (plantand microbial toxins), many chemicals found inthe environment may inadvertently contaminatefood products and pose potential health risks tothose consuming such products. Notable environ-

mental contaminants in foods include persistentorganic compounds of anthropogenic origin suchas polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins,as well as metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic,and cadmium.

All of the aforementioned environmental con-taminants, in addition to a variety of other foodchemicals, are summarized by the US Departmentof Health and Human Services Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.htmlcalpha. Informa-tion provided includes public health statements,health effects summaries, chemical and physicalinformation, identification of sources of exposure,analytical methods, regulations and advisories,and references. The results of ongoing exposureassessment programs for several environmentalcontaminants studied by the CDC can be ob-tained at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/cls/brochures/Exposure%20Assessment%20Programs.pdf. Lesscomprehensive summaries for lead, mercury, cad-mium, PCBs, and dioxins in foods are providedby EXTOXNET (http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/foodcon/main.htm) and contain a wide rangeof helpful web-based links for each of the chemi-cals. A consumer-friendly source of lead informa-tion developed by Ohio State University isavailable at http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/ohioline/hyg-fact/5000/5536.html.

The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Ap-plied Nutrition provides summaries of lead con-tamination, mercury and other trace elements inseafood, dioxins, and PCBs at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ lrd/pestadd.html. In addi-tion, it provides a listing of action levels forpoisonous or deleterious substances in humanfood and animal feed, including several environ-mental contaminants, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ lrd/fdaact.html.

The EPA has been particularly active in assess-ing the potential human health risks from expo-sure to dioxins, dibenzofurans, and coplanarPCBs in recent years. An EPA dioxin reassess-ment began in 1991, and in 1994 results of acomprehensive dioxin draft reassessment were is-sued. A finalized report incorporating the sugges-tions of science advisory panel members is stillbeing developed and EPA’s dioxin website (http://

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–96 95

www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin.htm) provides updatesof EPA progress as well as access to the threesignificant reports (Estimating Exposure toDioxin-Like Compounds, Health AssessmentDocument for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and related compounds, and risk charac-terization of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and related compounds) developed in1994. Internationally, the European ScienceFoundation issued its summary of its 2000 dioxinfood contamination workshop at http://www.esf.org/update/news/00/dioxin.htm.

Other EPA sites provide background informa-tion concerning environmental contaminants suchas lead (http://www.epa.gov/children/food/food-lead.htm), mercury (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/information.htm), cadmium (www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/cadmium.html), and PCBs (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polychlo.html).

7. Food allergens

Food allergies can be considered to be individu-alistic adverse reactions to foods since, in manycases, specific individuals may receive a debilitat-ing or possibly life-threatening reaction to foodcomponents while the same food components maybe innocuous to the vast majority of the popula-tion. While all foods, theoretically, could be con-sidered to be potentially allergenic, it has beenestimated that eight foods (cows’ milk, shellfish,eggs, fish, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, andwheat) may be responsible for at least 90% of allfood allergies (Taylor et al., 2000).

The FDA is responsible for developing guideli-nes for the labeling of foods that may containallergens and has made its policy guide availableon the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance–ref/cpg/cpgfod/cpg555-250.htm. TheFDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nu-trition website (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/wh-alrgy.html) also contains food allergyinformation of interest to consumers, includingfact sheets and slide presentations.

Other useful US government Internet sitesproviding information about food allergens aremaintained by the US National Institute of Al-

lergy and Infections Diseases (http://www.niaid.nih.gov) and the US National Libraryof Medicine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/med-lineplus/foodallergy.html). The former site focusesupon ongoing research projects while the latterprovides a comprehensive listing of news updates,general reviews, prevention/screening programs,research, statistics, and links.

Non-government sources of food allergen infor-mation include the Food Allergy and AnaphylaxisNetwork (http://www.foodallergy.org/), the Al-lergy Society of South Africa (http://allergysa.org), and the Food Allergy Researchand Resource Program of the University of Ne-braska (http://www.farrp.unl.edu/).

The EPA, in its evaluation of pesticides, is alsorequired to consider the potential allergenic ef-fects of chemical pest management practices. Re-cently, a biotechnology-derived corn product(StarLink™, developed by Aventis CropSciences)containing the bacterial insecticide Bacillusthuringiensis received EPA registration for use onfeed corn but approval for use on corn for humanconsumption was not granted due to unresolvedconcerns as to the allergenicity of the Cry9Cprotein expressed in the recombinant corn. Beforethe EPA could make a final conclusion as to thepotential allergenicity of the Cry9C protein, anumber of food monitoring programs detectedStarLink in several corn products marketed forhuman consumption. This issue generated consid-erable media coverage and likely hastened EPA’sevaluation of the Cry9C protein allergenicity. Arecent report of EPA’s FIFRA Scientific AdvisoryPanel Meeting assessing the scientific informationconcerning StarLink™ corn was issued in Decem-ber, 2000 and is available through the EPA athttp://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/november/one.pdf.

8. Summary

This manuscript has attempted to provide sum-maries of several useful Internet resources avail-able in the field of food toxicology. It is by nomeans comprehensive and the author acknowl-

C.K. Winter / Toxicology 173 (2002) 89–9696

edges that many excellent resources were not dis-cussed while many that were may be subject tochange or deletion in the coming months or years.Nevertheless, the existence of such Internet re-sources provides consumers, researchers, regula-tors, legislators, and food producers with valuabletools that are easily and inexpensively accessible.

References

Ames, B.N., Profet, M., Gold, L.S., 1990. Nature’s chemicalsand synthetic chemicals: comparative toxicology. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7782–7786.

Bruhn, C.M., Winter, C.K., Beall, G.A., Brown, S., Harwood,J.O., Lamp, C.L., Stanford, G., Steinbring, Y.J., Turner,B., 1998. Consumer response to pesticide/food safety risk

statements: implications for consumer education. DairyFood Environ. Sanit. 18, 278–287.

Ditschun, T.L., Winter, C.K., 2000. Food additives. In:Helferich, W., Winter, C.K. (Eds.), Food Toxicology.CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 187–202.

Ferrer, A., Cabral, R., 1995. Recent epidemics of poisoning bypesticides. Toxicol. Lett. 82–83, 55–63.

Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S.,Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., Tauxe, R.V., 1999. Food-re-lated illness and death in the United States. Emerg. Infect.Dis. 5, 607–625.

NRC, 1996. Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the HumanDiet. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Taylor, S.L., Hefle, S.L., Gauger, B.J., 2000. Food allergiesand sensitivities. In: Helferich, W., Winter, C.K. (Eds.),Food Toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1–36.

Winter, C.K., 2001. Contaminant regulation and managementin the United States: the case of pesticides. In: Watson,D.H. (Ed.), Food Chemical Safety: Contaminants, vol. 1.Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 295–313.